ICC public forum, London 20 February: internationalists against capitalist wars

[Alf]

International Communist Current public forum
2pm 20 February,
Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, London WC1, nearest tube Holborn

How can internationalists respond to capitalist wars?

The illusions about Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama are fading fast. Under his presidency, American imperialism is stepping up its military presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and surrounding Iran with a barrage of missiles. War is spreading throughout the Middle East, central Asia and the Horn of Africa. Meanwhile the ruling class in Britain is treating us to the spectacle of the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, which is based on the ridiculous premise that imperialist massacres should conform to the niceties of international law.

This forum will discuss the real causes and aims of the wars currently ravaging the planet, with a particular focus on the title question: how can internationalists, the small but growing number of those who consistently oppose all capitalist wars, respond to this accelerating slide towards war?

Short presentation followed by open discussion. All welcome.

[Alf]

this saturday

[Alf]

A very good meeting. Two AF comrades came and another ex-AF now closer to Solidarity Federation, two comrades from the Communist Workers Organisation, a number of ICC sympathisers and a Trot (International Bolshevik Tendency). There was a high degree of agreement on basic internationalist positions and what they imply, incuding the need to create a framework for further discussion between the different currents and eventual common work. Not with the Trot obviously but having him there enabled people to see more clearly what they have in common. We will publish a fuller report soon

[BOZG]

Not with the Trot obviously but having him there enabled people to see more clearly what they have in common. We will publish a fuller report soon

:laugh:

[Q]

Not with the Trot obviously but having him there enabled people to see more clearly what they have in common. We will publish a fuller report soon

Sectarian obviousness that is.

[black magick hustla]

im sorry but sparts are godawful

[BOZG]

im sorry but sparts are godawful

The IBT are not Sparts, they're Sparts with a human face!

[jake williams]

how can internationalists, the small but growing number of those who consistently oppose all capitalist wars, respond to this accelerating slide towards war?
I'm really not too interested in being sectarian, but I have to say this: this sort of statement really shows how unaware of the world trots (or whatever the ICC considers itself) actually are. Most of the world consistently opposes the vast majority of capitalist wars. The Catholic Church, which isn't a small or insignificant institution, pretty fucking consistently opposes capitalist wars (arguably more consistently than most socialist groups). And even if you only qualify serious, effective protest as "opposition" there are all kinds of other groups, from religious to social democratic, that consistently and effectively oppose war.


ed: I just want to add that if you want to disregard the sectarian comment, you can: my point is that it's a really arrogant supposition that this particular meeting involves the only small group of people that "consistently oppose all capitalist wars", and it's really offensive to the many, many people around the world who have committed their lives to precisely that.

[which doctor]

the sparts should to be fossilized and preserved in a museum somewhere

[black magick hustla]

ed: I just want to add that if you want to disregard the sectarian comment, you can: my point is that it's a really arrogant supposition that this particular meeting involves the only small group of people that "consistently oppose all capitalist wars", and it's really offensive to the many, many people around the world who have committed their lives to precisely that.

I think there is a very "small" group of people who consistently oppose all capitalist wars. Which does not include IBT, which are tankie trots who call for the defense of north korea etc. There where some internationalists coming out of the crisis of trotskyism, but the IBT is not necessarily them.

[jake williams]

I think there is a very "small" group of people who consistently oppose all capitalist wars. ... There where some internationalists coming out of the crisis of trotskyism, but the IBT is not necessarily them.
So you disagree, for example, that the Catholic Church pretty consistently opposes war in general? (I might ask further which wars are not classified as "capitalist wars", especially since WWII). Moreover, am I to understand that the usage of "internationalist" here is one I'm not party to? Some unusual and particular understanding whereby an "internationalist" is someone part of some obscure group, apparently unaware of the massive international anti-war movements, which declares itself to "consistently oppose capitalist wars"?

[Devrim]

Moreover, am I to understand that the usage of "internationalist" here is one I'm not party to? Some unusual and particular understanding whereby an "internationalist" is someone part of some obscure group, apparently unaware of the massive international anti-war movements, which declares itself to "consistently oppose capitalist wars"?

I think that there is nothing particularly anti-war about the majority of the so-called 'massive international anti-war movements'. The feeling I get with many of these things is that they are not anti-war at all, merely backing one particular side, witness the support for Hizbullah in the last war in Lebanon.

Devrim

[jake williams]

I think that there is nothing particularly anti-war about the majority of the so-called 'massive international anti-war movements'. The feeling I get with many of these things is that they are not anti-war at all, merely backing one particular side, witness the support for Hizbullah in the last war in Lebanon.

Devrim
If your feelings are correct, and they may be, we're still talking about a pretty large group of people who are not even Marxists and are consistently anti-war. Even if they're not expansive mass movements, there are certainly a significant number of people who I think basically fit that description.

If you want to narrow the field only to a certain number of people who have a particular Marxist view of conflict, you're free to do so, but I think it should be made clear that that's what you're doing, I don't think it should be done implicitly.

[Devrim]

If you want to narrow the field only to a certain number of people who have a particular Marxist view of conflict, you're free to do so, but I think it should be made clear that that's what you're doing, I don't think it should be done implicitly.

Yes, I think there are people who oppose wars who aren't Marxists or anarchists. I think the term internationalist is used to refer to those who oppose war from a class perspective.

Devrim

[BOZG]

A very good meeting. Two AF comrades came and another ex-AF now closer to Solidarity Federation, two comrades from the Communist Workers Organisation, a number of ICC sympathisers and a Trot (International Bolshevik Tendency). There was a high degree of agreement on basic internationalist positions and what they imply, incuding the need to create a framework for further discussion between the different currents and eventual common work. Not with the Trot obviously but having him there enabled people to see more clearly what they have in common. We will publish a fuller report soon

That doesn't really describe a public meeting. It describes a meeting of left trainspotters in reality. I wouldn't consider it a good meeting.

[Q]

this sort of statement really shows how unaware of the world trots (or whatever the ICC considers itself)

The ICC is left-communist, probably the largest organisation standing in this tradition (which, with about 300 members internationally, isn't saying a terrible lot). They consider Trotskyists to be part of the "leftwing of the bourgeoisie".

[ls]

Didn't make it to this, but it was probably interesting enough a meeting.


The ICC is left-communist, probably the largest organisation standing in this tradition (which, with about 300 members internationally, isn't saying a terrible lot). They consider Trotskyists to be part of the "leftwing of the bourgeoisie".

Someone will probably correct me on this, but I thought something like ICP/Battaglia Comunista had quite a lot of members, remembering that they are based in Italy alone.


That doesn't really describe a public meeting. It describes a meeting of left trainspotters in reality. I wouldn't consider it a good meeting.

As opposed to meetings called by your beloved member of european parliament, regarding what jobs are next to be axed by him right?

[BOZG]

As opposed to meetings called by your beloved member of european parliament, regarding what jobs are next to be axed by him right?

What are you talking about?

[BOZG]

And to make it clear, my point is that for groups like the IBT or the Sparts, this would be a good meeting because they see themselves as being propaganda groups (maybe the IBT is a bit more outward looking) and they're particularly focused on orientating towards left groups and other organisations in order to build themselves up and then to turn outwards. I would not have been of the opinion that this was the attiude of the AF or the ICC so in that context, I can't really see this as being a successful public meeting.

[ls]

And to make it clear, my point is that for groups like the IBT or the Sparts, this would be a good meeting because they see themselves as being propaganda groups (maybe the IBT is a bit more outward looking) and they're particularly focused on orientating towards left groups and other organisations in order to build themselves up and then to turn outwards. I would not have been of the opinion that this was the attiude of the AF or the ICC so in that context, I can't really see this as being a successful public meeting.

What do you think that the ICC sees itself as a revolutionary party? If so, it would have called itself something like "intl'ist workers' cp of gb". Furthermore, they have are indeed "outward looking", they have participated in everything that was multi-tendency from the beginning, such as the postal strikes to the open discussions on Kosovo (which involved groups ranging from marxist-leninists through to trots through to anarchists and leftcoms). Also, even Anarchist Federation don't necessarily see themselves as the vanguard organ of a potential workers' revolution in the future.

It's pretty obvious that just a part of the ICC's reason for existing is to be a propaganda group, other than that, their stated aim is to have an organisation of extremely class-conscious well-developed proletarian militants, I don't think there is anything wrong with that myself and giving out to opportunism and calling themselves a party would be pretty stupid. The CWI-SP has a tendency of just letting anyone in, supporting anyone and doing anything they feel will further themselves, while they have started some worthwhile movements they have let opportunism grow and grow until it threatened to destroy the movement, only workers at the grassroots have stopped this from being the case pretty much every single time.

[BOZG]

What do you think that the ICC sees itself as a revolutionary party? If so, it would have called itself something like "intl'ist workers' cp of gb". Furthermore, they have are indeed "outward looking", they have participated in everything that was multi-tendency from the beginning, such as the postal strikes to the open discussions on Kosovo (which involved groups ranging from marxist-leninists through to trots through to anarchists and leftcoms). Also, even Anarchist Federation don't necessarily see themselves as the vanguard organ of a potential workers' revolution in the future.

It's pretty obvious that just a part of the ICC's reason for existing is to be a propaganda group, other than that, their stated aim is to have an organisation of extremely class-conscious well-developed proletarian militants, I don't think there is anything wrong with that myself and giving out to opportunism and calling themselves a party would be pretty stupid. The CWI-SP has a tendency of just letting anyone in, supporting anyone and doing anything they feel will further themselves, while they have started some worthwhile movements they have let opportunism grow and grow until it threatened to destroy the movement, only workers at the grassroots have stopped this from being the case pretty much every single time.

What's with the fucking bee in your bonnet? Did you actually read what I said?

I never implied in anyway that the ICC or the AF are claiming to be a revolutionary party. My point was that as far as I understand, the AF and the ICC see themselves as groups who are appealing to people beyond members of the left groups or activists and are appealing to ordinary workers.

Groups like the IBT and the Sparts on the otherhand, while I'd assume they would like to recruit ordinary workers, are generally focusing on building their organisations because they don't see themselves as parties just yet and would like to build a revolutionary cadre before taking a fully open turn to the masses. Maybe the IBT are not as blunt as that but I've been told by Sparts themselves that this is their current focus. In reality, their current orientation is towards activists and left groups as grounds for recruitment.

In that context, such a meeting would be a success for a group like the Sparts but I can't understand how it can be a success for a group that has much broader outlook if only left activists attended and not ordinary workers. Maybe I'm wrong and the ICC is currently focusing on recruiting left militants from other groups and in that case, the meeting was maybe a success.

And before you go on your little tirades, it would help to understand what exactly am I referring to by propaganda groups or propaganda circles. They're not groups who merely give out propaganda and hope to offer a leadership of ideas, they're groups that are inward focusing, hoping to develop their internal organisations prior to taking a turn to mass work.

Finally, what are you talking about when claiming that Joe Higgins is axing jobs?

[Leo]

Someone will probably correct me on this, but I thought something like ICP/Battaglia Comunista had quite a lot of members, remembering that they are based in Italy alone.

In the late forties, the PCInt had thousands of members in Italy. In the late seventies, the Bordigist ICP again had thousands of members internationally, although considerably less in Italy. Battaglia, while it was initially the majority in the split in 1952 in the PCInt, while they still have good numbers in Italy, is nevertheless quite small, and from what I have heard they don't have more than a several dozen members.

[Devrim]

In the late forties, the PCInt had thousands of members in Italy.

Tens of thousands I believe


the PCInt, while they still have good numbers in Italy, is nevertheless quite small, and from what I have heard they don't have more than a several dozen members.

It is probably in three figures, just.

Devrim

[Q]

Why did the ICP's forces dwindle down so much?

[Devrim]

Why did the ICP's forces dwindle down so much?

Basically they were formed in the wave of struggle after the war, and when it died down so did they. They split in 1952, and have continued to split since. There are at least four groups today calling themselves the International Communist Party, as well as other groups who had more originality whilst thinking of a new name.

'Programma' (the different ICPs are known by names of their publications), which was the main current internationally seemed to 'implode' in 1982 in a dispute over Arab nationalism.

Devrim

[The Ungovernable Farce]

And to make it clear, my point is that for groups like the IBT or the Sparts, this would be a good meeting because they see themselves as being propaganda groups (maybe the IBT is a bit more outward looking) and they're particularly focused on orientating towards left groups and other organisations in order to build themselves up and then to turn outwards. I would not have been of the opinion that this was the attiude of the AF or the ICC so in that context, I can't really see this as being a successful public meeting.
There's different kinds of meeting. There are meetings where you start off by assuming you have some piece of knowledge that the public could benefit from, and try to get them along to hear it. Most Trot meetings fall into this category, and there's nothing inherently wrong with this kind of meeting (f'r instance, there's a speaking tour currently being organised to publicise the repression faced by Serbian and German anarcho-syndicalists, which is a subject where awareness needs to be raised and spread). There's also meetings where you start off by being aware that you don't know everything, and there's some gaps in your understanding of the world, so you sit down with some people who have a relatively similar outlook to you and try and improve your ideas together. This may be a bit masturbatory, but if as a revolutionary you only go to meetings about things you already know about, you'll never improve your consciousness. This second type of meeting is certainly the kind of thing that the AF and the Commune are currently doing as a joint activity where I live; I have no idea if this is what the ICC intended to do (from what I've seen of them, one of the ICC's major flaws has tended to be an assumption that they actually do know everything there is to know about everything), but if is then it sounds like it could've been a success on those terms.


Also, I've never heard "propaganda groups" used in that way before. It's a pretty misleading use of the term. Surely propaganda, by definition, is usually aimed at people outside the group, so your criticism of the Sparts et al isn't that they make propaganda, it's that they neglect making propaganda in favour of inward-looking stuff?

[BOZG]

There's different kinds of meeting. There are meetings where you start off by assuming you have some piece of knowledge that the public could benefit from, and try to get them along to hear it. Most Trot meetings fall into this category, and there's nothing inherently wrong with this kind of meeting (f'r instance, there's a speaking tour currently being organised to publicise the repression faced by Serbian and German anarcho-syndicalists, which is a subject where awareness needs to be raised and spread). There's also meetings where you start off by being aware that you don't know everything, and there's some gaps in your understanding of the world, so you sit down with some people who have a relatively similar outlook to you and try and improve your ideas together. This may be a bit masturbatory, but if as a revolutionary you only go to meetings about things you already know about, you'll never improve your consciousness. This second type of meeting is certainly the kind of thing that the AF and the Commune are currently doing as a joint activity where I live; I have no idea if this is what the ICC intended to do (from what I've seen of them, one of the ICC's major flaws has tended to be an assumption that they actually do know everything there is to know about everything), but if is then it sounds like it could've been a success on those terms.


Also, I've never heard "propaganda groups" used in that way before. It's a pretty misleading use of the term. Surely propaganda, by definition, is usually aimed at people outside the group, so your criticism of the Sparts et al isn't that they make propaganda, it's that they neglect making propaganda in favour of inward-looking stuff?

That's fair enough and I've no problem with groups organising those type of meetings. For example, we recently organised a forum on the re-introduction of water charges which we recognised would generally appeal to old anti-water charges activists or to other political groups rather than necessarily being a meeting that the masses would attend. Having re-read the OP, it does generally seem to be aimed more towards "internationalists" and in that sense, it potentially is a success though I wouldn't describe a meeting as aimed towards other groups/activists as a "public forum".

Propaganda circles would have been a far more precise phrase but I was working on the assumption that it would be widely known but in fairness, by the very nature of such a circle or group, it probably only really applies to vanguard organisations and is probably only used amongst vanguard organisations or those that are widely read on the development and history of such groups. Nonetheless, ls's was extremely aggressive and completely ignored the point that I was making and just comes across as a sectarian attack.

I have numerous problems with the Sparts but I don't have a problem with propaganda circles as a rule. Any new or small group inevitably goes through a period where it has to build up some level of forces before it can be more outward looking and orientated towards mass work. The issue with the Sparts is that they have no orientation towards mass work at all really. Their whole focus is on attacking other groups and winning over other activists.

[Alf]

We generally call our public forums public because they are open to anyone. It's true that some meetings can be attempts to draw in a wider audience, particularly if you think that they may connect to more immediate struggles, and we would certainly be in favour of such meetings at given moments. But part of the problem facing revolutionary organisations today is that they are not only small, but also divided among themselves, and if they are to overcome their isolation and have a bigger impact they must begin to get over these divisions. The very modest aim of this meeting was to start breaking down the long-standing divisions between internationalist groups from various tendencies, by at least getting a face to face debate going. In this sense we think the meeting was a success.

This is very far from a sectarian project. We don't consider that we know everything but we have very good, political reasons for considering that the Trotskyists are not part of the internationalist movement, or have not been for many decades. And we certainly don't include the Catholic or any other Church as consistent opponents of capitalist wars (not since the Pope was standing up for feudal wars at any rate).

Leo and Devrim - I think you are probably overestimating the numbers of militants in the PCInt in Italy after the second world war - I have never seen the figure of tens of thousands. Several thousand, yes. Similarly I doubt very much whether the Bordigist PCI had thousands of members prior to the explosion of 1982.

[Leo]

Similarly I doubt very much whether the Bordigist PCI had thousands of members prior to the explosion of 1982.

Well, thats what I've heard from ex-militants or ex-Bordigist sympathizers who I know.

[Devrim]

Leo and Devrim - I think you are probably overestimating the numbers of militants in the PCInt in Italy after the second world war - I have never seen the figure of tens of thousands. Several thousand, yes. Similarly I doubt very much whether the Bordigist PCI had thousands of members prior to the explosion of 1982.

I may be wrong, but it is a commonly quoted figure. Look no further than Wiki:


The International Communist Party was a left communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism) international which was also described as a Bordigist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadeo_Bordiga) party. The strongest base of the party was Italy, in which, at one point, they had more than 50,000 members.

Devrim

[Alf]

hm, as I say to students, don't always trust what you read on wiki.....In any case, there was certainly a rapid influx of workers towards the party when it was formed at the end of the war, and this was part of the upsurge which led many comrades to think that the second world war would give rise to a new 1917, above all in the defeated countries. But these hopes were dashed very quickly and the party's numbers quickly diminished. The other aspect of this sudden rise in numbers was a drift towards opportunism which was criticised very severely by the Gauche Communiste de France in particular.

[BOZG]

We generally call our public forums public because they are open to anyone. It's true that some meetings can be attempts to draw in a wider audience, particularly if you think that they may connect to more immediate struggles, and we would certainly be in favour of such meetings at given moments. But part of the problem facing revolutionary organisations today is that they are not only small, but also divided among themselves, and if they are to overcome their isolation and have a bigger impact they must begin to get over these divisions. The very modest aim of this meeting was to start breaking down the long-standing divisions between internationalist groups from various tendencies, by at least getting a face to face debate going. In this sense we think the meeting was a success.

This is very far from a sectarian project. We don't consider that we know everything but we have very good, political reasons for considering that the Trotskyists are not part of the internationalist movement, or have not been for many decades. And we certainly don't include the Catholic or any other Church as consistent opponents of capitalist wars (not since the Pope was standing up for feudal wars at any rate).

Leo and Devrim - I think you are probably overestimating the numbers of militants in the PCInt in Italy after the second world war - I have never seen the figure of tens of thousands. Several thousand, yes. Similarly I doubt very much whether the Bordigist PCI had thousands of members prior to the explosion of 1982.

We'll obviously disagree over the Trotskyist thing but thanks for clarifying nonetheless.