Is the ICC a sect?
- Thread starter wld_rvn
- Start date
younghegelian
New Member
I don't know if Sipriano is having a laugh with hs post about the ICC,but I thought it was brilliant. In fact, and this is how sad I am, I am going to send it to all my friends now...
"Of particular concern to my colleagues is the imperialist drive towards war, and frequently do they say to me " Look the rate of profit has fallen yet again " ha ha, I don't know why, but I am finding this hilarious.
However, it would be useful if those the ICC were responding to in their last post were to respond to them, as I would be interested in seeing how the discussion works out.
I have been discussing, in a very odd fashion, with the ICC for the past couple of years (I don't really know how long, it is all such a blur, lol). I am rather surprised that I have not been called a parasite, although I have been told I am in the swamp, something I also found to be hilarious. I don't think they found it too funny when I asked if they had a towel to wipe the mud off...
"Of particular concern to my colleagues is the imperialist drive towards war, and frequently do they say to me " Look the rate of profit has fallen yet again " ha ha, I don't know why, but I am finding this hilarious.
However, it would be useful if those the ICC were responding to in their last post were to respond to them, as I would be interested in seeing how the discussion works out.
I have been discussing, in a very odd fashion, with the ICC for the past couple of years (I don't really know how long, it is all such a blur, lol). I am rather surprised that I have not been called a parasite, although I have been told I am in the swamp, something I also found to be hilarious. I don't think they found it too funny when I asked if they had a towel to wipe the mud off...
Top Dog said:have they got picktures of masked up yoof?
one will have a pic of an old dead foreign bloke with a massive beard, and one will have a picure of comrade radek addressing the proletariat of the dusseldorf rail yards, during the infamous sealed train when he got carried away with backward revolutionary overenthusiasm
Paul Marsh
NeitherWashingtonNorMecca
Is the ICC a cult?
Yes.
Yes.
Is it better to be big or right?
However, given the overwhelming weight of bourgeois ideology in all its forms, any organisation that holds views that are radically opposed to the prevailing ideology is labelled a ‘sect’ or a ‘cult’. Even more so when this organisation defends certain proletarian principles and ways of behaving that are radically opposed to bourgeois and petty-bourgeois conceptions and methods. Just as the working class is an 'outlaw class', a communist organisation is an alien body within bourgeois society. The things the ICC says, and the way it intervenes, may sound and look bizarre to many but we understand that this is to be expected in these times when there is a growing distaste for theoretical clarity, political depth and organisational rigour.
There are a number of assumptions in the responses to this thread that we want to take up.
1. "If you are a small organisation then what you do is unimportant". In other words it's better to be in something big no matter who is running it. Well if you believe that then you may as well go and join one of the mainstream parties and campaign for reforms. Size does matter, but the world communist party of the future will not be a ‘mass party’ in the sense of the social-democratic parties of the Second International. The experience of the Bolsheviks has shown that the revolutionary organisation will of necessity always be a minority. What is more important - to be big, or to be right?
2. “All the little groups should work together instead of being sectarian”. Within what we call the ‘proletarian political milieu’ (ICC, IBRP, Bordigists plus sympathisers and fellow travellers) the ICC has always been in favour of principled regroupment against sectarianism, we participated in the The International Conferences of the Communist Left (1976-80) . We have repeatedly appealled for the other groups of the PPM to adopt common positions in the face of imperialist wars. Such appeals have always been rejected, and what is more the sectarianism within the PPM is increasing. The ICC is now the target of a veritable campaign of attacks and manoeuvres against which we have the right and the duty to defend proletarian principles and the very honour of the international communist left. The very conception of a proletarian political milieu is being abandoned, along with the marxist theory of the decadence of modes of production.
3. “All the little groups are insignificant, and their quarrels are hilarious”. A brief acquaintance with the history of revolutionary minorities (Communist League, Bolsheviks, Spartakists, KAPD etc) reveals that yes, for 90% of their existence they were ‘insignificant’ but at certain moments in history they had a decisive weight on the course of history. When they met for the first time at the international conference of 1915 at Zimmerwald, Trotsky could joke that the proletariat's revolutionary representatives – the kernel of the Third International - could fit into a few taxis. But their intransigent internationalist positions were to be born out by events. The communist left is such a ‘historic’ tradition with a pivotal role to play in the future world revolution precisely because it never betrayed the principles of proletarian internationalism during the period of the counter-revolution (late ‘20s to late ‘60s) unlike the Trotskyists who crossed the class frontier to defend participation in the Second World War. The future world communist party can only be formed on the basis of the political and organisational acquisitions of the communist left. This is why we think it is so important to have these struggles to defend proletarian principles and methods: they are 'historic struggles', because without the communist left the chances of the communist revolution being successful - and the future of humanity being liberated from capitalist barbarism - are zero. The stakes are that high.
4. “There is something bizarre about the ICC because they have internal crises and denounce people”. Well, we would ask anyone who has been in a leftist organisation (Stalinist/Trotskyist/Anarchist) whether these are not full of individuals seeking influence, back-biting, ‘informal channels’, ‘chum politics’, ‘gurus’ etc. etc. Anyone who has been in such groups knows - if they are the honest - that this is the case. (There are certainly enough people in the ICC who've been through such groups to know that this is the case!) Capitalism is a disgusting society that is rotting on its feet, so it is only to be expected that it fosters disgusting behaviour. And the fact of saying "I am a revolutionary" does not automatically wash you white as Persil.... So what to can be done? The ICC has learned the hard way that all this is not easy, but that the first thing to do about crises in the organisation is not to hide them, but to be honest about them and try to learn from them, and from the struggles within previous revolutionary organisations (marxists within the First International against Bakunin’s Alliance, Lenin and the Bolsheviks at the 2nd Conference of the RSDLP in 1903). In our experience, this is not what anarchists do.
Finally, we can't help noticing that all the people who go on about "the working class", "how irrelevant the ICC is", etc. etc., are in, errr... forgive us for saying this... "late" groups. Class War? The DAM? Where are they now? And all those hundreds of others who burst on the scene telling us what they were going to do?... And the ones that do survive are the out and out leftists: In France there are the "Alternatives Libertaires" who argue, as anarchists, that the Palestinians.... should have a state!!!!
For the ICC,
World Revolution.
That wasn't the original question though. We originally asked 'Is the ICC a sect?' because on other threads we have seen the idea commonly put about that the ICC "has sound politics" but "because their behaviour and interventions... are so bizarre and erratic, they would appear to be pathologically incapable of conducting a sane human relationship beyond their own number." This argumentation is incorrect, and the main aim of this thread was to combat this false vision. However, the fact that the question 'Is the ICC a cult?' has been raised is interesting. As an organisation that defends marxism, and thus for the development of class consciousness against religious illusions, the ICC clearly is not a 'religious cult'. So, is the ICC a 'sociological cult'? This is just one of the many lies, slanders and accusations that have been thrown at us often before by parasitic groups and individuals, and again we have openly fought these in our press , during the mid 1990s (we are working to publish certain of these articles on our website) and more recently in the combat against the so-called 'Internal Fraction of the ICC'.Paul Marsh said:
However, given the overwhelming weight of bourgeois ideology in all its forms, any organisation that holds views that are radically opposed to the prevailing ideology is labelled a ‘sect’ or a ‘cult’. Even more so when this organisation defends certain proletarian principles and ways of behaving that are radically opposed to bourgeois and petty-bourgeois conceptions and methods. Just as the working class is an 'outlaw class', a communist organisation is an alien body within bourgeois society. The things the ICC says, and the way it intervenes, may sound and look bizarre to many but we understand that this is to be expected in these times when there is a growing distaste for theoretical clarity, political depth and organisational rigour.
There are a number of assumptions in the responses to this thread that we want to take up.
1. "If you are a small organisation then what you do is unimportant". In other words it's better to be in something big no matter who is running it. Well if you believe that then you may as well go and join one of the mainstream parties and campaign for reforms. Size does matter, but the world communist party of the future will not be a ‘mass party’ in the sense of the social-democratic parties of the Second International. The experience of the Bolsheviks has shown that the revolutionary organisation will of necessity always be a minority. What is more important - to be big, or to be right?
2. “All the little groups should work together instead of being sectarian”. Within what we call the ‘proletarian political milieu’ (ICC, IBRP, Bordigists plus sympathisers and fellow travellers) the ICC has always been in favour of principled regroupment against sectarianism, we participated in the The International Conferences of the Communist Left (1976-80) . We have repeatedly appealled for the other groups of the PPM to adopt common positions in the face of imperialist wars. Such appeals have always been rejected, and what is more the sectarianism within the PPM is increasing. The ICC is now the target of a veritable campaign of attacks and manoeuvres against which we have the right and the duty to defend proletarian principles and the very honour of the international communist left. The very conception of a proletarian political milieu is being abandoned, along with the marxist theory of the decadence of modes of production.
3. “All the little groups are insignificant, and their quarrels are hilarious”. A brief acquaintance with the history of revolutionary minorities (Communist League, Bolsheviks, Spartakists, KAPD etc) reveals that yes, for 90% of their existence they were ‘insignificant’ but at certain moments in history they had a decisive weight on the course of history. When they met for the first time at the international conference of 1915 at Zimmerwald, Trotsky could joke that the proletariat's revolutionary representatives – the kernel of the Third International - could fit into a few taxis. But their intransigent internationalist positions were to be born out by events. The communist left is such a ‘historic’ tradition with a pivotal role to play in the future world revolution precisely because it never betrayed the principles of proletarian internationalism during the period of the counter-revolution (late ‘20s to late ‘60s) unlike the Trotskyists who crossed the class frontier to defend participation in the Second World War. The future world communist party can only be formed on the basis of the political and organisational acquisitions of the communist left. This is why we think it is so important to have these struggles to defend proletarian principles and methods: they are 'historic struggles', because without the communist left the chances of the communist revolution being successful - and the future of humanity being liberated from capitalist barbarism - are zero. The stakes are that high.
4. “There is something bizarre about the ICC because they have internal crises and denounce people”. Well, we would ask anyone who has been in a leftist organisation (Stalinist/Trotskyist/Anarchist) whether these are not full of individuals seeking influence, back-biting, ‘informal channels’, ‘chum politics’, ‘gurus’ etc. etc. Anyone who has been in such groups knows - if they are the honest - that this is the case. (There are certainly enough people in the ICC who've been through such groups to know that this is the case!) Capitalism is a disgusting society that is rotting on its feet, so it is only to be expected that it fosters disgusting behaviour. And the fact of saying "I am a revolutionary" does not automatically wash you white as Persil.... So what to can be done? The ICC has learned the hard way that all this is not easy, but that the first thing to do about crises in the organisation is not to hide them, but to be honest about them and try to learn from them, and from the struggles within previous revolutionary organisations (marxists within the First International against Bakunin’s Alliance, Lenin and the Bolsheviks at the 2nd Conference of the RSDLP in 1903). In our experience, this is not what anarchists do.
Finally, we can't help noticing that all the people who go on about "the working class", "how irrelevant the ICC is", etc. etc., are in, errr... forgive us for saying this... "late" groups. Class War? The DAM? Where are they now? And all those hundreds of others who burst on the scene telling us what they were going to do?... And the ones that do survive are the out and out leftists: In France there are the "Alternatives Libertaires" who argue, as anarchists, that the Palestinians.... should have a state!!!!
For the ICC,
World Revolution.
wld_rvn said:
What is your opinion about Workers Power?
younghegelian
New Member
Well I don't think it is boring, and even if I did, why would I need to post something saying I was bored? Just leave the topic and go onto something else.
I think the ICC are making some interesting points, and I would like to point out that I wasn't really trying to criticise them when I mentioned that I was told I was in the swamp. I have no problem with people being denounced if they deserve to be denounced. And in fact, at this point, I agree with the ICC that the positions I held at the time they said I was in the swamp where those which in fact put me in the 'swamp'.
This may be off topic, but I am studying Hegel, and for the first time, I can actually understand it, or at least I think I can. So, does anybody have any suggestions for what particular books to read, either by him or by others? I have been studying Stace's systematic work on him, which is very useful, although I was rather annoyed at the lack of space spent on the philosophies of nature and religion, whilst he spent 40 pages explaining his philosophy of fine art (art is nonsense, religion is at least interesting).
I think the ICC are making some interesting points, and I would like to point out that I wasn't really trying to criticise them when I mentioned that I was told I was in the swamp. I have no problem with people being denounced if they deserve to be denounced. And in fact, at this point, I agree with the ICC that the positions I held at the time they said I was in the swamp where those which in fact put me in the 'swamp'.
This may be off topic, but I am studying Hegel, and for the first time, I can actually understand it, or at least I think I can. So, does anybody have any suggestions for what particular books to read, either by him or by others? I have been studying Stace's systematic work on him, which is very useful, although I was rather annoyed at the lack of space spent on the philosophies of nature and religion, whilst he spent 40 pages explaining his philosophy of fine art (art is nonsense, religion is at least interesting).
wld_rvn said:
Couldn't agree more with your first sentence and some would say that you were being too kind. I liked this bit from your link....
What do you think about their calls for a fifth international, workers defence squads against fascism, an international brigade for Iraq and their analysis that we are in a pre revolutionary period? It's about time these so called 'workers friends' were exposed.
younghegelian
New Member
Just a few points...
About Workers Power: There is no point in a 'Fifth International' as this International would be Trotzkyite if Worker's Power had their way.
As to Iraq, I think it would be absurd to support going in and defending Iraqi 'native' capital against the US military. We would be easily smashed, and more importantly, I am not going to go and fight for representatives of a class opposed to me. The fact that capitalism lost its progressive nature through the development of the productive forces to the extent necessary for the establishment of communism, and because the relations of productive became a fetter, in relative terms, upon their development, means that no capital is progressive in relation to another capital: they are all thoroughly reactionary and we must oppose all of them. The bourgeois revolution has been completed: the epoch of imperialism is the epoch of proletarian revolution.
'Workers' defence squads' are squads set up, not to fight against the bourgeoisie as a whole but simply fascists. And, if they are just defence squads, does that mean they are not going to use any violence unless the fascists use violence, and that all violence will be as an immediate reaction to the violence of the fascists? No, WP etc are dangerous, and they will just turn the people in the workers defence squads into thugs who will break up fascist meetings, and beat them up, which will just increase the resolve of the fascists in the first place, which defeats the purpose.
If we are going to set up defence squads against fascists, we should also set them up against Labour, Liberal and Tory types, as well as WP and the leftist types, as these people will resort to the same as the fascists if they need to. The enemy is not fascism but capitalism, and we cannot enter into broad alliances against fascism, because these alliances always end up being for something they call 'democracy'.
I don't know about the pre-revolutionary period idea, what does the ICC think of it? Just as importantly, what do you think of it?
I was surprised to find that WP decided that China was capitalist in the 1990s. I found this out a few weeks ago, when I said 'So I assume you call China a deformed workers state'. 'No, it is capitalist' the chap said, and that is what made me interested, then he tells me about the reversal of the gains in the 1990s by privatisation. It seems that any understanding of elementary economic theory eludes these idiots: well it has eluded better men than them.
And to Matt, the ICC doesn't think that all other groups are counter-revolutionary, although it may as well do so, considering that its paper is full of attacks upon everybody else in the 'milieu'. I stopped following all the 'polemics' quite some time ago. They actually have an Internal Fraction who write a journal of 20 pages every month, which has about 2 pages in it which do not criticise the ICC.
And as to the CP, is this the same CP that told us that the capitalism which existed in Russia was 'socialism'? Is this the same CP that told us that we should struggle for such a 'paradise' in which we would be exploited by a new set of masters, the 'Communist' Party? If not, then PERHAPS they aren't in the camp of capital...
About Workers Power: There is no point in a 'Fifth International' as this International would be Trotzkyite if Worker's Power had their way.
As to Iraq, I think it would be absurd to support going in and defending Iraqi 'native' capital against the US military. We would be easily smashed, and more importantly, I am not going to go and fight for representatives of a class opposed to me. The fact that capitalism lost its progressive nature through the development of the productive forces to the extent necessary for the establishment of communism, and because the relations of productive became a fetter, in relative terms, upon their development, means that no capital is progressive in relation to another capital: they are all thoroughly reactionary and we must oppose all of them. The bourgeois revolution has been completed: the epoch of imperialism is the epoch of proletarian revolution.
'Workers' defence squads' are squads set up, not to fight against the bourgeoisie as a whole but simply fascists. And, if they are just defence squads, does that mean they are not going to use any violence unless the fascists use violence, and that all violence will be as an immediate reaction to the violence of the fascists? No, WP etc are dangerous, and they will just turn the people in the workers defence squads into thugs who will break up fascist meetings, and beat them up, which will just increase the resolve of the fascists in the first place, which defeats the purpose.
If we are going to set up defence squads against fascists, we should also set them up against Labour, Liberal and Tory types, as well as WP and the leftist types, as these people will resort to the same as the fascists if they need to. The enemy is not fascism but capitalism, and we cannot enter into broad alliances against fascism, because these alliances always end up being for something they call 'democracy'.
I don't know about the pre-revolutionary period idea, what does the ICC think of it? Just as importantly, what do you think of it?
I was surprised to find that WP decided that China was capitalist in the 1990s. I found this out a few weeks ago, when I said 'So I assume you call China a deformed workers state'. 'No, it is capitalist' the chap said, and that is what made me interested, then he tells me about the reversal of the gains in the 1990s by privatisation. It seems that any understanding of elementary economic theory eludes these idiots: well it has eluded better men than them.
And to Matt, the ICC doesn't think that all other groups are counter-revolutionary, although it may as well do so, considering that its paper is full of attacks upon everybody else in the 'milieu'. I stopped following all the 'polemics' quite some time ago. They actually have an Internal Fraction who write a journal of 20 pages every month, which has about 2 pages in it which do not criticise the ICC.
And as to the CP, is this the same CP that told us that the capitalism which existed in Russia was 'socialism'? Is this the same CP that told us that we should struggle for such a 'paradise' in which we would be exploited by a new set of masters, the 'Communist' Party? If not, then PERHAPS they aren't in the camp of capital...
younghegelian said:
I like your point about workers defence squads against Workers Power ,I have been concerned about their attempts to influence individuals in the teachers unions for some time.
Pre revolutionary period? I have lost count of how many years we have been at the same time that close but so far away from being in a pre revolutionary period .
younghegelian
New Member
Hiya
What do you mean about their attempts to influence teachers? Are they going around trying to get them to take part in such 'defence squads against fascism'? It seems that leftists have had, for a long time, a lot of support amongst teachers, who like to see themselves as enlightened intellectuals.
What do you mean by a pre-revolutionary period? Are they talking about a period immediately preceding a revolution? Yes, the working class are being attacked by the capitalist class, and more intensively than before, but there has as yet been not very much in the way of a fightback, not in Britain anyway. I think such a fightback, on a mass scale, is a precondition of us being able to say we are in a pre-revolutionary period. I don't really know, I have spent too much time in the abstract and have spent too little time looking at concrete developments. This is something I had better sort out to be honest.
Another question, where is the ICC?
What do you mean about their attempts to influence teachers? Are they going around trying to get them to take part in such 'defence squads against fascism'? It seems that leftists have had, for a long time, a lot of support amongst teachers, who like to see themselves as enlightened intellectuals.
What do you mean by a pre-revolutionary period? Are they talking about a period immediately preceding a revolution? Yes, the working class are being attacked by the capitalist class, and more intensively than before, but there has as yet been not very much in the way of a fightback, not in Britain anyway. I think such a fightback, on a mass scale, is a precondition of us being able to say we are in a pre-revolutionary period. I don't really know, I have spent too much time in the abstract and have spent too little time looking at concrete developments. This is something I had better sort out to be honest.
Another question, where is the ICC?
younghegelian said:
It seems to be the case, several schools have banned them from selling papers in the common room at break time but they are resorting to more sinister methods. They claim to have had teachers leading strikes against the war and refuse to take part in running sports teams on Saturday mornings or doing the school show.
younghegelian said:
There are a few WP members on here ( at one time about a fifth of their membership) who could try and explain what they are on about better, as I can't make head or tail of it. Redhippy, WP member and Cockneyrebel ( though I think cockers has been stood down by his comrades after some faux pas on here). All I can say is that apparantly there is a difference between a pre-revolutionary period and a pre-revolutionary situation and that there is not a pre-revolutionary situation here but there is one in Venezuala apparantly.They have a sliding scale of pre-revolutionary demands that the massess chant depending on the degree of pre-revolution in each country.That explains why Workers Power were calling for a bit of the fence to be pulled down and the Spar shop to be looted at the G8 demo but in Venezuala they are banging on about general strikes and arming the workers. I may not be able to give their arguement the full credit that it deserves but I think the principles are clear.
I am also not keen on their policy on their bohemian policy on Class A drugs or their support for the Wombles either.
ICC ? I think there is only one bloke and he is very buisy.
mattkidd12 said:Oh I do love your posts.
It's a struggle at my age to keep up!
Chuck Wilson said:
This does indeed appear to be the case. It seems like he's been replaced by one of the big guns, the imaginitively-named WP member.
I wish I could have been a fly on the wall when WP member got wind of whatever ideological deviation cockney committed. Lenin's berating of Kamanev in the car from the Finland Station springs to mind.
I miss cockneyrebel, but it had to be done, I guess: any more of it and the struggle for the Fifth International could be lost. And then the Workers' Defence Squads would have to be called off. The whole pre-revolutionary situation would then be in jeopardy. And, ultimately, the whole fiuture of humankind.
It really doesn't bear thinking about.
younghegelian
New Member
Hiya Chuck
Sorry I haven't replied, here is something towards it.
About the leftists, I did not know they even tried to sell their paper in the first place, not to teachers anyway. Don't you think people with University degrees would just get pissed off at the patronising languages. Christ, I first read it when I was 13, and I was pissed off at the language, and just went and read Marx myself (boring person here).
I don't know wy the SWP etc would tell their members to refuse to take part in organising school and community events such as these. The question of reform and revolution is difficult, but I think communists ought to struggle to build upon their standing in the community, as this is working towards building a base of support, and a level of agreement within the working class.
I think the nature of demands whic hwe place before our fellow workers does have to be tailored, to an extent anyway, to the situation. However, I think it would be STUPID to go so low as to call merely for the 'Spar shop to be looted' and a bit of the fence to be taken down. The lowest demand should be for things like occupation of factories, abstention from useless bourgeois elections, abolition of the wages system, things which are actually useful. Smash up the Spar shop and youll get smashed up as well by the police.
What is their policy on Class A drugs? Aren't the Wombles just a group who dance around at demonstrations? Could you send me a link about this pre-revolutionary stuff?
The ICCs member on this forum is wld_rvn. They sent me an email about libcom, and how good my contributions on the unions were on it, but now I am a parasite in theireyes, I don't think they will be writing to me again, except to remind me of how much of a parasite on the proletariat I am. HA HA HA!
Sorry I haven't replied, here is something towards it.
About the leftists, I did not know they even tried to sell their paper in the first place, not to teachers anyway. Don't you think people with University degrees would just get pissed off at the patronising languages. Christ, I first read it when I was 13, and I was pissed off at the language, and just went and read Marx myself (boring person here).
I don't know wy the SWP etc would tell their members to refuse to take part in organising school and community events such as these. The question of reform and revolution is difficult, but I think communists ought to struggle to build upon their standing in the community, as this is working towards building a base of support, and a level of agreement within the working class.
I think the nature of demands whic hwe place before our fellow workers does have to be tailored, to an extent anyway, to the situation. However, I think it would be STUPID to go so low as to call merely for the 'Spar shop to be looted' and a bit of the fence to be taken down. The lowest demand should be for things like occupation of factories, abstention from useless bourgeois elections, abolition of the wages system, things which are actually useful. Smash up the Spar shop and youll get smashed up as well by the police.
What is their policy on Class A drugs? Aren't the Wombles just a group who dance around at demonstrations? Could you send me a link about this pre-revolutionary stuff?
The ICCs member on this forum is wld_rvn. They sent me an email about libcom, and how good my contributions on the unions were on it, but now I am a parasite in theireyes, I don't think they will be writing to me again, except to remind me of how much of a parasite on the proletariat I am. HA HA HA!
rebel warrior
Soca Warrior
Having just found this thread, I have to admit as a SWP member I am afraid to pass any comment on the matter of whether the ICC is a sect or not.
While I am tempted to think that, from the sound of things on here, that the ICC is too small to warrant even being called a sect, I fear if I actually came out and said this then it this would count as some sort of milestone in the history of their organisation. 'A member of the Socialist Workers Party and Galloway apologist suggested we might be a sect - this is the most serious attack our British section has ever faced from the most advanced and bloodthirsty sections of the counter-revolutionary capitalist bourgeoisie'.
Mind you, I do like Chuck's and LLETSA's analysis on the latest twists and turns of WP.
While I am tempted to think that, from the sound of things on here, that the ICC is too small to warrant even being called a sect, I fear if I actually came out and said this then it this would count as some sort of milestone in the history of their organisation. 'A member of the Socialist Workers Party and Galloway apologist suggested we might be a sect - this is the most serious attack our British section has ever faced from the most advanced and bloodthirsty sections of the counter-revolutionary capitalist bourgeoisie'.
Mind you, I do like Chuck's and LLETSA's analysis on the latest twists and turns of WP.
Rebel Warrior, with this sentence: "he ICC is too small to warrant even being called a sect", you have firmly established yourself as petit-bourgeois, who is on the side of capital. The vanguard of the proletariat will see through your counter-revolutionary lies. Smash capitalism! Smash the counter-revolutionary SWP!
rebel warrior
Soca Warrior
Thank god someone on here can see through my counter- revolutionary lies, matt. Far too many of my lies and tricks pass unchallenged in the petit-bourgeois infested 'objectively counter-revolutionary' swamp that is Urban 75.
Top Dog
Well-Known Member
hey rw, why dont you get back to answering some of the questions thrown at you on this thread and, Tip: leave the 'humour' to that thread eh? believe me, its much funnier watching you make a complete tool of yourself thererebel warrior said:
younghegelian
New Member
With regards to Rebel Warrior, I am sorry but I don't think his comments are all that useful. Does he think that the ICC is a sect or not: he says, "they are too small to be a sect". Why?
"A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.
A faction united by common interests or beliefs."
('sect', www.dictionary.com).
1. The ICC are a group within the proletarian milieu, although you wouldn't think it the way they call everyone else in it a parasite. They have certain refinements as such, which develop their perspectives in more detail than the general milieu of which they are a part. I am referring to their Luxemburgist theory here. I was also going to say their theory of the state, but I am pretty sure that their theory of the state does not accept the basic principles of the milieu which they are a part of.
Ill deal with 2 and 3 later.
"A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.
A faction united by common interests or beliefs."
('sect', www.dictionary.com).
1. The ICC are a group within the proletarian milieu, although you wouldn't think it the way they call everyone else in it a parasite. They have certain refinements as such, which develop their perspectives in more detail than the general milieu of which they are a part. I am referring to their Luxemburgist theory here. I was also going to say their theory of the state, but I am pretty sure that their theory of the state does not accept the basic principles of the milieu which they are a part of.
Ill deal with 2 and 3 later.
rebel warrior
Soca Warrior
Good stuff, younghegelian. My profoundist apologies to the comrades of the ICC for my not particularly 'useful' comments on whether they are in fact a sect or not. I hope this burning issue of the contemporary proletarian movement will soon reach its final resolution. The World Revolution waits for no man, not even members of the ICC.
younghegelian
New Member
Is this a piss take? There is little need to apologise to the ICC, just get on with discussing the issue which is the title of the thread, 'Is the ICC a sect'?.
Discussions about organisations within the proletarian movement, ARE important, but they are nowhere near as important about discussions about society as a whole.
As to the definitions.
2. Is the ICC a religious body? I have only met them once, and I cannot really say how they function, expect that they seem to follow a lot of rather useless bureaucratic procedures. Does this make them religious? What is religion in the first place? Ludwig F tried to set up an atheist communist religion, on the basis that religion is merely 'bond'. How are the ICC members bound to one another? Well, the fact that they all seem to be centred around London seems to suggest a high level of bondage, similar to that of groups like the Spartacist League. The only regular event the ICC holds is a street stall, in LONDON, although they also hold an occasional seminar in Birmingham or Manchester: I don't know what bearing this has. The only seminar we could say was at all regular was the one they hold in LONDON. One would have to have more knowledge about the nature of the ICC's activities, in the sense of WHERE they are conducted, and the geographical location of its members, it's active members, before one could fully analyse it.
Has the ICC split from a larger denomination? There are internal and external fractions of the ICC, whcih would suggest that these fractions are in fact more sectish. But from what I have heard, in some of the splits, the split off group has been almost the same size as the group who threw them out. In fact, I would imagine that if we were to add up all the people expelled from the ICC, we would find it to be more than the ICC's membership. If this were true, then perhaps we could say that it is a sect in this way. However the question of splitting from a larger formation is not really relevant, although in terms of the ICC it is because it's splits are not on principle but on questions of organisation, or so it would seem.
3. I would have thought the ICC were united by a common perspective, a common perspective which they have which distinguishes them from everybody else. If you meet the ICC, you know you have met the ICC. Their attitude and way of work seems completely different to everybody elses.
Anyway, I think I have said enough for the time being. Let's hear what everybody else thinks. And another point, one which I am every decent person must feel himself compelled to make: I AM NOT AND NEVER HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE ICC.
Discussions about organisations within the proletarian movement, ARE important, but they are nowhere near as important about discussions about society as a whole.
As to the definitions.
2. Is the ICC a religious body? I have only met them once, and I cannot really say how they function, expect that they seem to follow a lot of rather useless bureaucratic procedures. Does this make them religious? What is religion in the first place? Ludwig F tried to set up an atheist communist religion, on the basis that religion is merely 'bond'. How are the ICC members bound to one another? Well, the fact that they all seem to be centred around London seems to suggest a high level of bondage, similar to that of groups like the Spartacist League. The only regular event the ICC holds is a street stall, in LONDON, although they also hold an occasional seminar in Birmingham or Manchester: I don't know what bearing this has. The only seminar we could say was at all regular was the one they hold in LONDON. One would have to have more knowledge about the nature of the ICC's activities, in the sense of WHERE they are conducted, and the geographical location of its members, it's active members, before one could fully analyse it.
Has the ICC split from a larger denomination? There are internal and external fractions of the ICC, whcih would suggest that these fractions are in fact more sectish. But from what I have heard, in some of the splits, the split off group has been almost the same size as the group who threw them out. In fact, I would imagine that if we were to add up all the people expelled from the ICC, we would find it to be more than the ICC's membership. If this were true, then perhaps we could say that it is a sect in this way. However the question of splitting from a larger formation is not really relevant, although in terms of the ICC it is because it's splits are not on principle but on questions of organisation, or so it would seem.
3. I would have thought the ICC were united by a common perspective, a common perspective which they have which distinguishes them from everybody else. If you meet the ICC, you know you have met the ICC. Their attitude and way of work seems completely different to everybody elses.
Anyway, I think I have said enough for the time being. Let's hear what everybody else thinks. And another point, one which I am every decent person must feel himself compelled to make: I AM NOT AND NEVER HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE ICC.
Similar threads
