Worker-Communist Initiative of Europe

[Martin Blank]

Forwarded from Facebook:


Worker-Communist Initiative gathers comrades living in Europe, inspired by worker-communist ideas and practices. We adopted the following statement, as a sumary of our fundamental principles :
« Worker-communsim is the working-class movement against capitalist exploitation and for human’s liberation from any kind of oppression. It’s a society without class, abolition of wage labour, common ownership of means of production, equality and freedom. It’s a society which really implement the principle ‘from each according to its capabilities, to each according its needs‘.

Communism is not national independancy, nor nationalisation of economy, nor nostalgia of uSSR or China or any other so-called socialist dictatoship, nor support any réactionnaire on behalf s/he’s an anti-imperialist.

In social struggle, against capitalist exploittaion, against sexism, against racism, against nationalism, against fundamentalism, against totalitarianism, against any kind of oppression and discrimination, communistes are there, to prepare revolution and real social changes. »

WCI’s program is, provisionnaly, « A better world », worker-communist party of Iran’s program wrote by Mansoor Hekmat. One of our tasks will be to adapt it to European realities.

Open to all those who agree with it, WCI aims to transform itself, as soon as possible, in an organisation, then a political party at european scale struggling for working-class seizing power. We don’t put this as a faraway future, but as a concrete, immediate, affordable goal which must mobilize militants’ energy.

WCI is organise by cells which meet regulary and choose their own geographical, professional or thematic scetor and organize their militant activity, in coordination with the organisation. WCI’s members are active in associations, unions, mobilization comitees, in a communist and revolutionnary perspective, withoit illusions about unions leaderships.

Currently, WCI diffuse its ideas trough its bulletin, Communisme-ouvrier (in french, Worker-communism) and it’s web-page, communisme-ouvrier.info ; by editing pamphlets and books,…

Communisme-ouvrier is published under responsability of an editorail comitee. Until a first congress, the comitee also act as a political leadership. It's a gitaion bulletin, publishing analysis and informations about class struggles and worker-communists activties, and presents their views on current issues. Publication is on a monthly basis, updated according social and militant topics.

Comrades from Iran and Iraq worker-communist parties can freely become WCI's members and be simultaneously militants in both organizations. After discussion, this possibility can be extended to other political organizations which ideas and practices are compatible with WCI's ones.

August, 22, 2010


WCI Website (http://www.communisme-ouvrier.info/)

[Zeus the Moose]

It looks like this grouping is at least in some way affiliated with the Worker-Communism Unity Party (what is now I think the third "Worker-Communist" tendency emerging from the original movement.) The little bit of information that I've found (mostly from Wikipedia) is that there's the original Worker-Communist Party of Iran and the Left-Worker-Communist Party of Iraq forming one tendency, the Worker-Communist Party of Iran-Hekmatist and the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq forming the second tendency, and the Worker-Communism Unity Party forming the third tendency.

Is there anyone more acquainted with Hekmatist groups to provide additional info?

EDIT: also, 144th post. Because 144 is an awesome number.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It needs to link up with the Independent Working Class Association in the UK, and that organization in turn needs to stop being scaredy cats about gaining political support beyond local elections.

[Devrim]

Is there anyone more acquainted with Hekmatist groups to provide additional info?

Not really, but I do know people that I can ask, well actually people who can ask people. Next time I speak to one of them I will ask for you.

I looked at the website (in English I don't speak any Farsi) of this new groupand there are no documents at all relating to the split. In fact it doesn't even say which side of the 2004 split they come from. I can't remember there being any English documents about that split when it happened either.

Maybe I will just write to them and ask them.


It needs to link up with the Independent Working Class Association in the UK, and that organization in turn needs to stop being scaredy cats about gaining political support beyond local elections.

What on Earth are you talking about now? What does the IWCA have in common with 'Worker Communism'?

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Both groups promote a workers-only membership policy.

[Devrim]

Both groups promote a workers-only membership policy.

I don't think that the worker communists do. I don't know about the IWCA. Besides the whole idea of a 'worker only membership policy' is nonsense. What about the retired? Would they be excluded? If it doesn't mean 'worker only', but means 'working class only', it would be less absurd, but only slightly less so. It means that you would be using class analysis, which is a tool for understanding society to determine the class status of individuals.

In my opinion communist organisations shouldn't let employers join, but that is a different thing.

Besides this they both have totally different politics. Surely organisations should 'link up' based on political ideas, and not an arcane membership policy.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't think that the worker communists do. I don't know about the IWCA.

http://www.iwca.info/?page_id=1001#quest28


Yes the IWCA is open to any working class person in Britain. This does not mean middle class people are excluded. On the contrary we welcome them as allies, but at the same time the class character of the IWCA, if it is to function politically, must remain overwhelmingly a working class one. So accommodating working class people will be our primary goal.

Now:


Besides the whole idea of a 'worker only membership policy' is nonsense. What about the retired? Would they be excluded? If it doesn't mean 'worker only', but means 'working class only', it would be less absurd, but only slightly less so.

That's what I meant. "Workers only" obviously refers to active workers, retired workers (pensioners), workers looking for work, etc. It's the same membership policy that Kautsky advocated within the pre-war SPD, that even the renegade Kautsky upheld (at least for a time) while Lenin became a lesser renegade by suggesting that more peasants join.

This is one of the reasons why most soviet models fail: because they exclude participation by the likes of pensioners. It took the 1918 constitution to clear things up.


It means that you would be using class analysis, which is a tool for understanding society to determine the class status of individuals.

Because being determines consciousness?


In my opinion communist organisations shouldn't let employers join, but that is a different thing.

How is that a different thing? :confused:

Beggars, self-employed jocks, and mid-level managers tend to have very different politics and culture than the working class.


Besides this they both have totally different politics. Surely organisations should 'link up' based on political ideas, and not an arcane membership policy.

In other words, you prefer sectarianism.

[Devrim]

Besides this they both have totally different politics. Surely organisations should 'link up' based on political ideas, and not an arcane membership policy.
In other words, you prefer sectarianism.

No, we are talking about two different groups, which you have obviously know very little about, which have absolutely nothing in common at all. Why on Earth should they 'link up'?


That's what I meant. "Workers only" obviously refers to active workers, retired workers (pensioners), workers looking for work, etc. It's the same membership policy that Kautsky advocated within the pre-war SPD, that even the renegade Kautsky upheld (at least for a time) while Lenin became a lesser renegade by suggesting that more peasants join.

Please go and rant about Kautsky on another thread. It has nothing at all to do with 'worker communism', or the discussion at hand.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

It has everything to do with Worker-Communism. Why else would comrade Miles, a staunch advocate of such membership policy, be posting this kind of stuff?

This is an attempt to build a revolutionary left movement in Europe with the aforementioned membership policy, the only real way to "have organic links with the working class."

[Q]

Besides this they both have totally different politics. Surely organisations should 'link up' based on political ideas, and not an arcane membership policy.
What are the political tenets of "worker-communism" anyway?

[Zanthorus]

Because being determines consciousness?

No, no it doesn't. I posted this in reply to Rosa Lichtenstein's attempts to use the same slogan to write off 'Dialectical Materialism' as a 'petit-bourgeois' theory:


When Marx said that "social existence... determines consciousness" he was counterposing it to the Young Hegelian assertion that "It is... the consciousness of men that determines their existence". Note that in the initial (i.e Young Hegelian) assertion only 'consciousness' is spoken of, but in the 'upside down' version by Marx it now says 'social existence'. Peter Stillman notes that although 'social existence' is not actually defined, it is likely that this actually includes consciousness. This would make sense in light of Marx's assertion in The German Ideology that "the starting point... is real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness".

Here is an extract from Ideal Superstructures by Derek Sayer on the same subject:


Marx, of course, held a materialist view of consciousness. For him, ‘life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life’ (1846a: 38). In the words of the 1859 Preface, ‘it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness’ (1859a). The problem, however, is what exactly Marx meant by such claims...

In my view, Marx’s critique of idealism involves something quite different from, and very much more radical than, this straightforward inversion of idealism’s supposed order of priorities, and the inversion metaphor is in important ways misleading. What Marx does, in criticizing Hegel and his ‘left’ followers — Stirner, Bauer, and the rest — is first and foremost to deny the very existence of the ‘ideal’ as a separable entity. The ‘cunning of reason’, the ‘spirit of the age’, Hegel’s Weltgeist, the Young Hegelians’ ‘self-consciousness’, and so on, cannot for Marx be the subjects of history for the simple reason that they do not exist. They are reifications: philosophers’ fictions, abstractions made flesh, speculative constructions, just like in the ‘fruit’ example we considered in the last chapter. Marx’s central criticism of idealist history is that it is ‘an imagined activity of imagined subjects’ (1846a: 38).http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/absviol.html

[Devrim]

What are the political tenets of "worker-communism" anyway?

It comes from a split the early 1990s in the Communist Party of Iran (1983). The main leader was a guy called Mansoor Hekmat, around whose memory they have built a personality cult. They take what seems to be a similar position to left communists on imperialist wars, such as Iraq, but are involved in Kurdish national liberation.

In the West they seem to have this exile mentality that much of the Iranian, let's actually say Middle Eastern, left has, and focus most of their activity around Iran. This maybe a move away from that though.

The ICC characterises them as 'left Stalinist'.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

The main leader was a guy called Mansoor Hekmat, around whose memory they have built a personality cult.

See, "around whose memory" isn't as bad as personality cults of living figures, especially if said figures have made new contributions or rediscovered older but lost ones. Some Italian workers named their sons Lassallo and their daughters Marxina (to cite from Lars Lih's book).

The posthumous cult of Lassalle was instrumental in advancing the German worker-class movement and to a lesser extent the European worker-class movement. Undoubtedly this was the second half of the worker-peasant coin that was the Lenin cult (obscene sainthood veneration for the peasants, emulating the Lassalle cult for the workers).

[Q]

See, "around whose memory" isn't as bad as personality cults on living figures, especially if said figures have made new contributions or rediscovered older but lost ones. Some Italian workers named their sons Lassallo and their daughters Marxina.

Aha! I'm onto you now: you're out to have Italian kids named Jacoba and Richt, don't you? ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Aha! I'm onto you now: you're out to have Italian kids named Jacoba and Richt, don't you? ;)

Now that's what I call political humour! :lol: :laugh:

But you left out derivatives of Kautsky or KJK 2.1. 2.2? 3.0? 3.1? :tt2:

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, no it doesn't. I posted this in reply to Rosa Lichtenstein's attempts to use the same slogan to write off 'Dialectical Materialism' as a 'petit-bourgeois' theory

I just wanted to use a sound bite that time.

What do you think about Marx, Kautsky, Hekmat, etc. on membership policy?

[Devrim]

What do you think about Marx, Kautsky, Hekmat, etc. on membership policy?

I have read most of what Hekmat wrote that has been translated into English, and I have known and discussed with people who were 'worker communists' since before they formed the WCPI when the were still in the CPI (1983), and I have never heard any reference to this policy.

Quiet apart from that it is such an obvious point anyway. Communist organisations shouldn't include employers.

Devrim

[Zanthorus]

I just wanted to use a sound bite that time.

Sorry, I'm just a bit edgy about throwing that quote around because, more often than not, people on this site will simply dismiss things out of hand as coming from an alien class perspective (And I must admit to being guilty of this as well).


What do you think about Marx, Kautsky, Hekmat, etc. on membership policy?

If you're referring to the policy of disallowing employers into socialist organisations then I agree.

[Zeus the Moose]

Not really, but I do know people that I can ask, well actually people who can ask people. Next time I speak to one of them I will ask for you.

Thanks; I'd appreciate the info. I'm a fan of some of the things Hekmat has written, and think that the WCPIraq is doing some good work through the Iraqi Freedom Congress, but information on the different tendencies within "worker-communism" is fairly hard to come by. Considering, according to Wikipedia, the Worker-Communism Unity Party was formed my Hekmat's widow, I do have a feeling that these splits are largely personality driven.

[Devrim]

Thanks; I'd appreciate the info.

I actually wrote to all three of them and asked them so I will tell you what they say. The ICC has a few contacts in Northern Europe who originally come from that milieu. I don't know any of them personally, but I can ask people in the relevant national sections to find out.

There are also some Iranians in the ICT who a one point were pretty close to the Hekmatists to the point of holding a joint conference with SUCM. Again, I don't know any of them personally, but I can ask someone to ask.


I'm a fan of some of the things Hekmat has written, and think that the WCPIraq is doing some good work through the Iraqi Freedom Congress, but information on the different tendencies within "worker-communism" is fairly hard to come by.

I don't know that much about what they are doing in Iraq, but one of the things I do know is that they have a front group there called 'Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq'. Obviously there aren't any workers councils in Iraq. It is difficult to know what is really going on when all of their reports just seem to big up their front organisations.

Devrim

[bricolage]

The ICC characterises them as 'left Stalinist'.
To be fair this seems like pretty strange terminology.

[Zanthorus]

To be fair, pretty much all the terminology the ICC uses is strange.

[Devrim]

To be fair this seems like pretty strange terminology.


To be fair, pretty much all the terminology the ICC uses is strange.

Yes, I don't think that it is a particularly useful term, and I agree with Zanthorus that a lot of the terminology is pretty strange.

Here is the link (http://http://en.internationalism.org/wr/293_wpiran.html) to the article that talks about them anyway.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

If you're referring to the policy of disallowing employers into socialist organisations then I agree.

I was referring to disallowing lumpen, self-employed, small-business-owning, and certain state (cops, lawyers, judges) elements from joining as well... not to mention coordinator intellectuals (like tenured profs with subordinate staff).


Thanks; I'd appreciate the info. I'm a fan of some of the things Hekmat has written, and think that the WCPIraq is doing some good work through the Iraqi Freedom Congress, but information on the different tendencies within "worker-communism" is fairly hard to come by. Considering, according to Wikipedia, the Worker-Communism Unity Party was formed my Hekmat's widow, I do have a feeling that these splits are largely personality driven.

Isn't the IFC a popular front, though? :confused:

[Palingenisis]

Yes, I don't think that it is a particularly useful term, and I agree with Zanthorus that a lot of the terminology is pretty strange.



My understanding is that they dont uphold Stalin though and that to some degree at least they have been influenced by the Communist Left.

Would the ICC also classify Red Action in the past as Left Stalinist for upholding the right of national self-determination?

[Zanthorus]

self-employed

This one is a bit iffy. Have you ever heard of false self-employment?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes I have (a case on strippers, actually, and I posted this in your thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/false-self-employment-t135264/index.html) ;) ). "False self-employed" folks would be allowed in. It's easy to determine who they are because of tax authority rejections of their deducting certain expenses.

Can I presume now that you have no objections to fully upholding Marx, Engels, Kautsky, and Hekmat on this membership policy question (not barring only employers)?

[Devrim]

Yes I have (a case on strippers, actually, and I posted this in your thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/false-self-employment-t135264/index.html) ;) ). "False self-employed" folks would be allowed in. It's easy to determine who they are because of tax authority rejections of their deducting certain expenses.

This is the problem with this sort of policy. Who exactly is working class? Jacob's answer to how to implement a proletarian policy is to ask the tax authorities.


Can I presume now that you have no objections to fully upholding Marx, Engels, Kautsky, and Hekmat on this membership policy question (not barring only employers)?

Kautsky came from the middle classes and apart from movement jobs never did a days work in his life.

Did Hekmat espouse this line? I have never heard of it, and I don't think you have quoted anything at all that suggest he did. You are just trolling the thread.

Devrim

[Devrim]

My understanding is that they dont uphold Stalin though and that to some degree at least they have been influenced by the Communist Left.


Yes, you are right. They don't uphold Stalin. Some of the people who later became this current, SUCM, were close to the ICT, so I think it is quite possible that they were influenced to some extent by the communist left.


Would the ICC also classify Red Action in the past as Left Stalinist for upholding the right of national self-determination?

No, their roots are in Trotskyism. They are a split from the SWP.

As I said before I don't think this characterisation is particularly useful.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

Yes, you are right. They don't uphold Stalin. Some of the people who later became this current, SUCM, were close to the ICT, so I think it is quite possible that they were influenced to some extent by the communist left.


Well from what I understand they are very influenced by Rosa Luxembourg who is associated with the Communist Left. I can understand why you would see them as part of the Left-wing of Capital given their support for "Democratic" demands but I dont understand how you arrived at them being some variety of "Stalinism".

[Devrim]

Well from what I understand they are very influenced by Rosa Luxembourg who is associated with the Communist Left. I can understand why you would see them as part of the Left-wing of Capital given their support for "Democratic" demands but I dont understand how you arrived at them being some variety of "Stalinism".

As I said, I don't think it is a very useful characterisation so I am not going to defend it.

The article says:


But neither of these factions have ever challenged the bourgeois – and essentially Stalinist - origins of the UCM/CPI current: the obsession with Iran and Iraq, the absurd personality cult around Hekmat, the open support for bourgeois positions such as national self-determination, trade unionism (spiced up with a pretence of setting up workers’ councils), and the setting up of all kinds of fronts that appeal to human rights and democratic values. Basically, the WCPI sees itself as an organ that can set up a new secular state when the present regimes in Iran and Iraq collapse – as a state in waiting.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

To be fair, pretty much all the terminology the ICC uses is strange.

I dont know......."subterrain maturation of consciousness" and "parasitism" which they get slagged about are actually useful concepts. Some on roughly the "left" have a paranoid fear of coming over as "1930sish" but just end up coming across as superficial if not condescending...ICC material is a lot more enjoyable to read than "Worker's Solidarity" or the "Socialist Worker".

[Leo]

To be fair this seems like pretty strange terminology.

Actually the term "left Stalinist" is not once used in the actual text to describe this tendency. I think it was a description made by Devrim to define the position.

The actual term used is radical Stalinist, and it is used only once in the text, to describe the UCM. There are certain groups in Turkey which I and I think some other comrades would consider radical Stalinists (in that they appear anti-parliamentarian, anti-trade union etc).

Can the WCPI be described as Stalinist? They certainly have roots in Stalinism, and their conception of socialism is still the Stalinist socialism in one country. The cult of personality around Hekmat also is typically Stalinist. I don't think it can be said that the WCPI broke from Stalinism any more than Khrushchev did. Description of the UCM as radical Stalinists is, probably accurate. Now, however, I am not sure whether the worker-communists can be described as radical Stalinists - their politics seem to have evolved into a liberal Stalinism if anything.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is the problem with this sort of policy. Who exactly is working class? Jacob's answer to how to implement a proletarian policy is to ask the tax authorities.

When I said "It's easy to determine who they are because of tax authority rejections of their deducting certain expenses," it means asking the prospective member directly the suggestive questions. :rolleyes:

What's your occupational background?
What kind of expenses can you in your current occupation deduct from your income?

I'm not kidding about the second question.


Kautsky came from the middle classes and apart from movement jobs never did a days work in his life.

He wasn't part of the proper party leadership, though. He was just the editor of the party's theory newspaper.


Did Hekmat espouse this line? I have never heard of it, and I don't think you have quoted anything at all that suggest he did. You are just trolling the thread.

Devrim

No I'm not trolling the thread. :glare:

[Q]

He wasn't part of the proper party leadership, though. He was just the editor of the party's theory newspaper.
Was he a partymember though?

[Devrim]

Was he a partymember though?

He was a party member, joining in 1875, and like the other people Jacob mentioned Marx, Engels, and Hekmat, would have been excluded by Jacob's policy.

Devrim

[Devrim]

No I'm not trolling the thread. :glare:

Yes, you are it is a totally unrelated thread which you are using to rant on about one of your pet ideas. Despite being asked more than once to connect Mansoor Hekmat to this idea which you claim he held, and thus your points to this thread in any way, you haven't even attempted to respond.

Devrim

[Devrim]

When I said "It's easy to determine who they are because of tax authority rejections of their deducting certain expenses," it means asking the prospective member directly suggestive questions. :rolleyes:

'Directly suggestive questions'? A question is either direct or suggestive. It would be pretty difficult for it to be both.


What's your occupational background?
What kind of expenses can you in your current occupation deduct from your income?

I'm not kidding about the second question.

Why would you be? Is it because of the North America middle class idea that it is rude to ask people about money? We go a step further, even in the US, and just ask new members how much they earn.

Personally I have never deducted any expenses from my income in my life, and doubt if I know anybody who ever has, except probably my current boss and a past boss. Would I be proletarian enough for your party?

Devrim

[Devrim]

Actually the term "left Stalinist" is not once used in the actual text to describe this tendency. I think it was a description made by Devrim to define the position.

The actual term used is radical Stalinist, and it is used only once in the text, to describe the UCM.

Radical Stalinist, left stalinist, it is much of a muchness, and certainly not any better or more helpful


and it is used only once in the text, to describe the UCM.

And big letters in the title.

Devrim

[Q]

He was a party member, joining in 1875, and like the other people Jacob mentioned Marx, Engels, and Hekmat, would have been excluded by Jacob's policy.

Devrim

Yes, I was implying as much in the case of Kautsky, but it would also indeed be true of Marx and Engels. I don't know enough about Hekmat to say the same.

So, let me be more direct for DNZ: Would it have been better to not have Kautsky in the SPD, as per your membership policy?

[Leo]

Radical Stalinist, left stalinist, it is much of a muchness, and certainly not any better or more helpful

I disagree. Left Stalinism would point to a left wing within Stalinism. Radical Stalinism on the other hand makes me think of a Stalinist group with a radical jargon and positions. How else would you describe Stalinist formations which are opposed to trade-unions, parliamentarianism and in some cases even critical of national liberation and anti-fascism, without breaking with Stalinist theory and practice?

[Devrim]

I disagree. Left Stalinism would point to a left wing within Stalinism. Radical Stalinism on the other hand makes me think of a Stalinist group with a radical jargon and positions.

Surely any 'Stalinist group with radical jargon and positions' would be on the left wing of Stalinist groups.


How else would you describe Stalinist formations which are opposed to trade-unions, parliamentarianism and in some cases even critical of national liberation and anti-fascism, without breaking with Stalinist theory and practice?

It would help if you mentioned which specific group you were talking about.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

http://www.wpiraq.net/english/2004/differences120304.htm

What they see as their differences with the Iraqi Communist Party.

http://www.m-hekmat.com/en/0600en.html

And here is their Programme.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, I was implying as much in the case of Kautsky, but it would also indeed be true of Marx and Engels. I don't know enough about Hekmat to say the same.

So, let me be more direct for DNZ: Would it have been better to not have Kautsky in the SPD, as per your membership policy?

What's done is done. Kautsky at least won against Bebel on the subject of letting German peasants into the SPD.

The tricky part about Kautsky's "business" was that the party didn't buy the newspaper from its inception in 1883. It should have.

Look at it contemporarily speaking: Paul Cockshott would be a member (no subordinate research staff, as far as I'm aware) while Jack Conrad or Mike Macnair would probably not be. Leo Panitch would definitely not be.

[Die Neue Zeit]

'Directly suggestive questions'? A question is either direct or suggestive. It would be pretty difficult for it to be both.

Forgive me for not being clear there. "Asking the prospective member directly the suggestive questions."


Why would you be? Is it because of the North America middle class idea that it is rude to ask people about money? We go a step further, even in the US, and just ask new members how much they earn.

Oh, the irony: look who's into middle-class ideas? :glare:

You're asking how much members earn, which fits in with liberal, income-based approaches to "class." The second question goes further than your income question.


Personally I have never deducted any expenses from my income in my life, and doubt if I know anybody who ever has, except probably my current boss and a past boss. Would I be proletarian enough for your party?

Devrim

My second question didn't ask about the quantity of expenses deducted, but rather the quality of expenses deducted: travel, meals and entertainment, regular and home office expenses, etc. It's the kind of stuff the real "middle class" deducts all the bloody time.

[Devrim]

You're asking how much members earn, which fits in with liberal, income-based approaches to "class." The second question goes further than your income question.

No, it is not how we determine people's class. It is how we determine how much dues they pay.

You have also yet to show that advocated this particular policy despite being asked on numerous occasions.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, it is not how we determine people's class. It is how we determine how much dues they pay.

I apologized for not being clear about a previous post of mine. Now it's your turn (your question could be asked, but only after my first two questions to determine whether the person joins in the first place). ;)

[Oh yeah, I've seen this dues-determining stuff somewhere on the SP-USA website.]

[Devrim]

I apologized for not being clear about a previous post of mine. Now it's your turn (your question could be asked, but only after my first two questions to determine whether the person joins in the first place). ;)

I think it is quite clear from the fact that I refer to new members that I was talking about people who had already joined unless of course you have problems reading your own language which judging by your ability to even notice the question I have now asked on numerous occasions I suspect you may have.

Devrim