Platform of the ICC

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
Peter Pan
Platform of the ICC
Printer-friendly versionSend by email

The discussion that follows was prompted by the article: Platform of the ICC. The discussion was initiated by Peter Pan.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!

Peter Pan
platform disappeared

Hi,

Where did the platform go? I can only find the introduction.

Grtz.

KT
Re Platform

I can only guess that it's part of the Problems with the Website mentioned on the front page.

Hawkeye
Platform compared

Reading yet again the 'Political positions of the ICC' now shown as on the latest edition of WR, it seems to me that a lot of those compare positively with the views of the International Communist Workers Party, which are on its website  icwpredflag.org.  Rather than a knee-jerk dismissive response, it would be useful for the working class to know how you might actually analyse its standpoint.  It is active in Los Angeles, Seattle, Mexico and elsewhere.

Regards.  26-5-2014.

 

Leo
Leo's picture
They seem to be a split from

They seem to be a split from the Progressive People's Party: "The Russian Revolution of 1917, the defeat of Hitler’s Nazi hordes at Stalingrad in 1943, the Chinese Revolution of 1949, and the Chinese Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of the 1960s were tremendous achievements that still inspire us today."

Hawkeye
Platform-reply to Leo

Thank you, Leo.  Yes, they split, for reasons stated on the ICWPredflag website, which contains many articles on theories and on current class struggles.  An important view of theirs is that socialism can no longer be viewed as a step towards communism, as many places which claimed to be socialist were said to be operating capitalist economies, so they campaign for the masses to be mobilized now for communism.  Incidentally, they have the slogan 'Dare to struggle, dare to win', but I don't think that therefore they should be described as Maoist.  There is always a lot to learn.

Leo
Leo's picture
I'm sorry, but as I've

I'm sorry, but as I've quoted, they say "the Chinese Revolution of 1949, and the Chinese Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of the 1960s were tremendous achievements that still inspire us today". They can be described as nothing but maoists. Unless they actually break from it, we can't and shouldn't consider them to be something they are not.

Also, the point about socialism was held by the PLP as well.

Fred
there's always a lot to learn!

Hawkeye wrote:

Thank you, Leo.  Yes, they split, for reasons stated on the ICWPredflag website, which contains many articles on theories and on current class struggles.  An important view of theirs is that socialism can no longer be viewed as a step towards communism, as many places which claimed to be socialist were said to be operating capitalist economies, so they campaign for the masses to be mobilized now for communism.  Incidentally, they have the slogan 'Dare to struggle, dare to win', but I don't think that therefore they should be described as Maoist.  There is always a lot to learn.

An important view of these Internationalist Communists is that socialism can no longer be viewed as a step towards communism.  By "socialism" I suppose they mean  nationalisations of certain industries.  But who, except the bourgeoisie and its treacherous left wing ever did think, or pretend to think,  that bourgeois measures to protect capitalism and disguise it and call it "socialism"  ever was a step towards communism?  It was, and still is, a step against communism!  

 

So, if workers have seen through this bourgeois ploy, what tactic do our honest and sincere Internationalist  and probably bourgeois    Communists deploy instead?  Answer: they campaign now for the masses to be mobilized for communism itself!    I wonder what they mean by communism? .  That they think the way to get it is to mobilize the masses for it - as you would mobilize the defeated proletariat for a war - suggests to me that they have no understanding at all of what communism is.  But then why should they?  

 

The way the masses of workers will mobilize themselves for the communist revolution is through the development of class consciousness and solidarity.  The emancipation of the workers is our own business.  Nobody can do it for us.  Certainly not some crackpot left wing group of bourgeois interfering marauders  out to sabotage the working class's developing awareness of itself and what it has to do to free itself, humanity and the planet from further ruination at the hands of capitalism including its left wing. 

 

Dare to struggle Dare to win  sounds like the title of a Second World War film in which the good bourgeoisie (probably a brave but misguided group of patriots somewhere) manage at last to defeat the bad bourgeoisie  (probably a group of fascists or right wingers of another kind, who give capitalism a bad name by using torture in a blatant manner.)   Yes, there's always a lot to learn. 

Hawkeye
Responding to Fred May 28 2014

Thanks, Fred, but actually many workers have regarded 'socialism' (whether or not of a manner approved by communist left)  as a step towards 'communism', so maybe it would be useful to reconsider a definition of terms and then, if possible leaving aside the distortions of 'nationalisation', reconsider the question of whether 'socialism', perhaps of any sort, would or would not be a step towards 'communism' whatever that might seem likely to be.

Hawkeye
Platforms compared

Readers might find a lots of recent comments on the Forum of website Leftcom, comparing the Platform of the ICT with the stand of the ICWP, relevant to the ongoing exchange of comments on this ICC website.

Alf
bourgeois groups and proletarian groups

From a quick read of the thread on the ICT forum, most of the replies seem to agree that this group is still Maoist. 

I looked briefly at the ICWP site and my immediate reaction is the same. 

It's not unknown for a bourgeois group to adopt proletarian positions, but it is very rare indeed for them to pass wholesale from the bourgeois to the proletarian camp, and this can only be done my making a profound critique of their former politics. The ICWP shows little sign of that kind of self-reflection as its primary function seems to build itself up as a "true" communist party in an activist manner. 

Behind these constant disagreements about this or that group, Hawkeye, is a profound difference about what we think the proletarian political camp is, and why it's different from the bourgeois camp. 

Hawkeye
Reply to Alf May 29, 2014

Thanks, Alf.  There's more on the ICT Forum about classification, domains, etc on May 29, 2014 afternoon per T34, with flak from others.