acronyms

44 posts / 0 new
Last post
Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jun 12 2010 19:17

Old news. miciver pops up once in a while to repeat what appears to be the ICC equivalent of a shitty cold war spy/thriller novel.

EdmontonWobbly's picture
EdmontonWobbly
Offline
Joined: 25-03-06
Jun 12 2010 19:59
Quote:
What the fuck is going on?

Clearly another organisation is 'melting down' and has been taken over by a much smaller outside group. Yet more proof that 'x left communist political line' is infallible.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jun 12 2010 21:41

It's the traumas of the past, very hard to overcome.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Jun 12 2010 22:32

When members of the ICC left the organisation back in 1980 (or thereabouts) all sorts of unpleasant shit happened. From what I can gather, Mciver is recounting pretty accurately what occurred. The ICC would do well to own up to it. Then they could put it firmly into the past.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jun 12 2010 22:57

I don't think this thread is the place for this. It began as a joke thread more suited to libcommunity, and these are very serious matters. We have never run away from debating this question. But if we are to have a serious discussion, we cannot begin with an assumption of guilt, ie that mciver's version is the correct one, and all the ICC needs to do is own up to its crimes.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Jun 13 2010 10:10

Alf post 34

Quote:
It's the traumas of the past, very hard to overcome.

A solemn statement by the ICC's favourite ideologist in the Anglo-American zone. It combines the trite dismissal of apparatchiks when confronting their past crimes - 'trauma' - and the insinuation that the person suffering from this deeply distressing condition is unable to 'overcome' it. Naturally, the 'trauma' is not something suffered by the ideologist, nor by his Parisian geppettos, but only by 'traumatised' others. How could a modern Bolshevik suffer from 'trauma'? This would be a treacherous concession to the petty-bourgeois ideology of decomposition. 'Traumatised' others is an upgraded and more clinically sounding category, a more subtle invective, or so Alf intuits, than the old 'parasite'. 'Traumatised' also would go down well with some in the 'libcommunity', those with the penchant for instant psycho-diagnoses. By the way, Alf appears to speak for this imaginary 'libcommunity', revealing the usual manipulative technique of apparatchiks.

The little joke I commented on was a ballsy baboonish one, not one by anybody else on this thread, as I have no quarrels with them.

But Alf's patronising, lay analyst tone, changes instantly when Knightrose writes:

Quote:
When members of the ICC left the organisation back in 1980 (or thereabouts) all sorts of unpleasant shit happened. From what I can gather, Mciver is recounting pretty accurately what occurred. The ICC would do well to own up to it. Then they could put it firmly into the past.

post 35

Then the old ICC racketeering spirit returns in full force, making the correct aside that this thread on acronyms (not just ICC acronyms), is not the place for 'this', ie, for these serious racketeering and parasitic matters.

The threads on Libcom criticising and exposing the ICC's past actions and crimes have never been replied to by the ICC, starting with the Ingram/CBG's texts. The ICC Theses on Parasitism (still proudly defiant as ever on their site) seem to be the only ICC retort on the matter. It's disingenous for Alf to assert the above, that the ICC has never run away from debating this question. Of course they have, and are still running. What they have done is simply publish their torrent of lies and calumnies, ignoring the factual evidence presented by oppositionists and ex-members in France and the UK. I for one don't debate with burglars and Stalinists. The ICC's totalitarian past, however, should be exposed as warning, as any decent critic has done since 1981. To other threads then.

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Jun 13 2010 10:54

The context of mciver's response here, in fairness, was baboon's gratuitous throwaway insult about mciver (which simultaneously trivialised the ICC's actual crimes). , if someone said you talked balls would you let it pass? I agree, though, that such discussions belong on other threads.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Jun 13 2010 11:08

I know a few members of the ICC. The all seem like decent comrades. The ICC could put this to bed simply if they were just to admit that they acted like complete dicks in the past and that it is something they'd rather hadn't happened. People are allowed mistakes, more so if they admit to them.

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Jun 13 2010 11:30

Certainly, I've got time for individuals. I think the 'integrity' of organisations is vastly over-rated and shouldn't be allowed to impinge on the fundamental decency (where appropriate) of the people within them. My 'problem' with the ICC shouldn't be read as a condemnation or dismissal of people who may be members. We're all human beings, and none of us should forget that.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jun 13 2010 15:28

Knightrose, as I say, this isn't the place for taking this any further. mciver has made some very serious accusations against our organisation and denigrated individual comrades in a way which should not be accepted here. He also says we are running away from this question. Others clearly accept his version of the events which took place in 1981.

In the past workers' movement, which had a better understanding of the necessity for solidarity among revolutionaries, accusations of this type were dealt with in a collective body in which more than one organisation of the movement took part. We have referred to this as the jury or court of honour, although the name is secondary. We think this practice would still be valid in today's movement.

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/jury_of_honour_01

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Jun 14 2010 00:25
Quote:
Alf appears to speak for this imaginary 'libcommunity', revealing the usual manipulative technique of apparatchiks.

Eh?

libcom.org/forums/libcommunity