Tagore2 banned

16 posts / 0 new
Last post
Forumteam
Tagore2 banned
Printer-friendly version

Tagore 2, who has previously accused the ICC of siding with the bourgeois state over the lockdown, in a manner comparable to the betrayal by social democracy in 1914, is now trying to use our forum as a rallying point for an anti-lockdown alliance with organisations of the bourgeois left: Trotskyist groups such as the "International Communist League" (better known as the Spartacists), and the "Revolutionary International Communist Tendency", which he falsely describes as "communist". We cannot under any circumstances allow our forum to be used for such a reactionary purpose. It is now clearer than ever that Tagore 2 has no place on this forum. We have therefore locked the thread in which he calls for joint statements between these counter-revolutionary groups, and have permanently banned him from this forum. 

Communist
Petty Stalinist Bureaucrats!

That's what you are. I also endorse Tagore's message - awaiting my ban!

This forum will just die off now. Someone else comes along with different ideas, and they are excluded! Do you really want the forum to be just the same 4/5 old geezers debating the same thing they've been debating for years?!

Deeply disappointed in this. And I say that as someone who has followed this forum for years and years, who has been to one of your events at Kings Cross and met people who all seemed like very decent, passionate militants. You are pushing away the next generation of militants.

Such a shame!

d-man
I find it difficult to agree

I find it difficult to agree with you Communist. Tagore created a new thread, specially announcing the position of the Spartacists. Just on the grounds of interest, do you honestly care to know what the Spartacists position is anything? Even if you do find it interesting, Tagore could have merely mentioned their position on one of the many existing threads on Covid that he has been creating. If he had merely done that, he would not have been banned I think (eg in the past here I mentioned the position of some French Maoist sites). But as the Forumteam (admin) says, he also mentioned that he was contacting(/reaching out to) 2 Trotskyist organisations, apparently wanting to launch a Covid Zimmerwald. Tagore has been a long-time forum-poster here, though I don't know much about him, but I doubt he would have contacted Spartacists for any other topic, except Covid. But imagine, leaving aside the Covid topic, that he did contact Trots for cooperation on other topics and announced this here, would you consider this a ban-worthy offense, or even just a positive contribution to forum discussion? It seems clear that the ICC would not agree to cooperation with Trots, so Tagore was not interested in discussion on the forum with ICC-sympathisers, but rather, as the Forumteam indicates, recruiting people for a new separate (online) group. I'm sure you are free to continue to express your opinion here on Covid, that is, from what I can judge as an observer, I don't expect that you will be banned.

Communist
d-man

d-man wrote:

I find it difficult to agree with you Communist. Tagore created a new thread, specially announcing the position of the Spartacists. Just on the grounds of interest, do you honestly care to know what the Spartacists position is anything? Even if you do find it interesting, Tagore could have merely mentioned their position on one of the many existing threads on Covid that he has been creating. If he had merely done that, he would not have been banned I think (eg in the past here I mentioned the position of some French Maoist sites). But as the Forumteam (admin) says, he also mentioned that he was contacting(/reaching out to) 2 Trotskyist organisations, apparently wanting to launch a Covid Zimmerwald. Tagore has been a long-time forum-poster here, though I don't know much about him, but I doubt he would have contacted Spartacists for any other topic, except Covid. But imagine, leaving aside the Covid topic, that he did contact Trots for cooperation on other topics and announced this here, would you consider this a ban-worthy offense, or even just a positive contribution to forum discussion? It seems clear that the ICC would not agree to cooperation with Trots, so Tagore was not interested in discussion on the forum with ICC-sympathisers, but rather, as the Forumteam indicates, recruiting people for a new separate (online) group. I'm sure you are free to continue to express your opinion here on Covid, that is, from what I can judge as an observer, I don't expect that you will be banned.

Yeah, understood - The ICC holds Trotskyists to be in the bourgeois camp and always has - I get that. But given hat Tagore was posting on here too, I'd say, at some point at least, that he had at least some admiration for the ICC - otherwise why bother posting on here so often? I don't think it's cause he's been wanting to undermine the ICC. Doesn't seem right to push people away like that. We've had open Stalinists posting on here before and ICC members have engaged in a robust debate with them.

As I see it, Tagore was working more towards a dialogue than any formal organisation.

Between me and yourself, sure we've had disagreements, but (and perhaps I'm wrong here) there was a mutual understanding that we are more or less on the same 'side', or at least coming from the same place if you know what I mean (politically in general, not neccessarily covid). And again, don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'd imagine you'd have seen Tagore in the same light, personal/differences in opinion aside.

I don't care for this anonymous 'forumteam' - who are they? Given how few posters comment on here regularly, why the need for a 'team'? Seems like just one person could do it - and maybe thats whats happening! I don't know, I can only speculate.

As said before, from the perspective of a semi-lurker on this forum (which, by the way will be probably where the majority of views/reads are coming from), it's not a good look at all. It looks petty and I don't think it advances any proletarian interest.

Anyway, I hope you are well.

d-man
Quote: We've had open

Quote:
We've had open Stalinists posting on here before and ICC members have engaged in a robust debate with them.

That's an objection against mere inconsistent application, so you still accept the rule. I doubt that posters here created threads on current positions of existing Stalinist organisations, but anyway, if there was any doubt, now (with the rules of the Forumteam) it seems clear, that such action would get posters banned. Perhaps this applies to creating threads for the position of any (non-leftcom) organisations: why give them a platform/exposure on this medium? This is the respsonsibility of the Forumteam, but it seems you reject the need for any decision at all in managing a forum, and if this is the case, why go to the trouble of creating a special forum or maintain a forum at all: would it not be better to liquidate it (and join twitter or other places with diverse opinions), if such decision-power cannot be exercised?

You raise the more general concern, about fostering discussion. If a non-leftcom group said anything original, then I could not dismiss it with the mere point that it comes from a non-leftcom group, that is, I'd have to argue on its own merit. Hence, in the first place I do not even need to be informed, that it comes from a non-leftcom group: just state the position/argument (if you believe it is correct), and be prepared to debate about (/defend) it. If you're not prepared to debate any particular argument, but just are posting the positions of groups, as information, then you're giving them exposure/influence, which is a decision you make in place of the audience, as if the audience is unable to gather information themselves. For example, suppose I do not want to hear the opinion of some Labour-pundit, but you post their opinion on the thread that we're debating on, then, if you disagree with the pundit's opinion, and merely want to share information as being of interest, I would find this detrimental to the quality of the discussion, and not an enrichment with diversity of opinions. You would not yourself be contributing to the discussion.

Communist
d-man wrote:

d-man wrote:

 

Quote:

We've had open Stalinists posting on here before and ICC members have engaged in a robust debate with them.

That's an objection against mere inconsistent application, so you still accept the rule.

It is an objection against inconsistent application - however I don't think it follows that I accept the rule (just as one can point out the hypocrisys of the bourgeois left, without seeking a 'purified' bourgeois left). I have no particular interest in 'the rules' beyond just, well, trying to be respectful.

d-man wrote:

I doubt that posters here created threads on current positions of existing Stalinist organisations, but anyway, if there was any doubt, now (with the rules of the Forumteam) it seems clear, that such action would get posters banned. Perhaps this applies to creating threads for the position of any (non-leftcom) organisations: why give them a platform/exposure on this medium? This is the respsonsibility of the Forumteam, but it seems you reject the need for any decision at all in managing a forum, and if this is the case, why go to the trouble of creating a special forum or maintain a forum at all: would it not be better to liquidate it (and join twitter or other places with diverse opinions), if such decision-power cannot be exercised?

It's not for me to say whether the forumteam should exist or not. I'd just like some notion of who they are - on any other forum you can see which users are the moderators. Are the forumteam also posters on this forum under their own personal username? Again, I just don't know.

d-man wrote:

You raise the more general concern, about fostering discussion. If a non-leftcom group said anything original, then I could not dismiss it with the mere point that it comes from a non-leftcom group, that is, I'd have to argue on its own merit. Hence, in the first place I do not even need to be informed, that it comes from a non-leftcom group: just state the position/argument (if you believe it is correct), and be prepared to debate about (/defend) it. If you're not prepared to debate any particular argument, but just are posting the positions of groups, as information, then you're giving them exposure/influence, which is a decision you make in place of the audience, as if the audience is unable to gather information themselves. For example, suppose I do not want to hear the opinion of some Labour-pundit, but you post their opinion on the thread that we're debating on, then, if you disagree with the pundit's opinion, and merely want to share information as being of interest, I would find this detrimental to the quality of the discussion, and not an enrichment with diversity of opinions. You would not yourself be contributing to the discussion.

Yeah, fair enough. But I don't see Tagore as seeking to play to any audience - or if he is, then it's a consequence of the more regular posters having more or less given up on discussing with him (prior to ban). I'm not claiming to be 'correct' - I'm just saying that I think the forum will be a poorer place without Tagore acting as gadfly. Certainly less interesting to me (again, I know it aint about me, but still).

Communist
What rallying point?

Forumteam wrote:

Tagore 2, who has previously accused the ICC of siding with the bourgeois state over the lockdown, in a manner comparable to the betrayal by social democracy in 1914, is now trying to use our forum as a rallying point for an anti-lockdown alliance with organisations of the bourgeois left 

What do the words rallying point mean to you? A point where people rally or gather under a common cause. 

Which of the organisations of the bourgeois left have rallied here on the ICC forum?

I haven't seen any!

 

Communist
Spartacists?

d-man wrote:

I find it difficult to agree with you Communist. Tagore created a new thread, specially announcing the position of the Spartacists. Just on the grounds of interest, do you honestly care to know what the Spartacists position is anything?

Not interested in what they have to say as spartacists. However I am interested in the fact that 'the left' are beginning to reassess many of the covid certainties of the past year. 

d-man
Quote: But I don't see Tagore

Quote:
But I don't see Tagore as seeking to play to any audience - or if he is, then it's a consequence of the more regular posters having more or less given up on discussing with him (prior to ban).

My point there wasn't about Tagore allegedly playing to an audience (of non-leftcom groups), but that "we" (the forum-readers) are the audience who are in a sense "exposed" to whatever source of information Tagore decides to post (information that might be interesting or whose source he doesn't even necessarily himself endorse), and, in this way, he himself doesn't foster discussion. This doesn't mean he should be banned for this reason, but my point is just, that such conveying of news, messages or info, is not actually contributing to discussion (which is what you are concerned about). An extreme example: on the old Revleft-forum there was a poster (btw who now is still active on Redmarx) who every day started several new threads (like maybe easily an average of 7), apparently just posting news articles. The result is like reading someone else's twitter-feed, and this doesn't encourage anything beyond superficial discussion, already merely due the knowledge that this poster will the next day start new threads, moving on, and so it's not worth the effort to go deep in debate with him (as it will be ignored). So what's happening then (if it's not, as I claim, actually fostering of debate)? The posted sources of information get free and legitimising exposure to an audience (forum-readers), who would rather, ideally, come here to debate, and not be subject to someone's preferred news editorial filter.

 

 

petey
a vote of supprt

i support the ICC's decision. i know little of the intra-tendency fighting, but this is not a matter of opinion. the prevalence of this fatal disease requies a consistent response based on the interests of the class, not some triangulating calculation.

Demogorgon
Some brief points

Tagore was not banned for having "different ideas". They were banned because they were openly regrouping with Trotskyist organisations (who are enemies of the working class, just like the Stalinists) and using the ICC forum to encourage others to do the same. That is a completely unacceptable use of the forum. The ICC also tolerated for some time Tagore's increasingly wild accusations about it being somehow in league with the bourgeois state because of his (false) belief that it "supports" lockdown. The ICC's actual position is laid out here: https://en.internationalism.org/content/17015/anti-lockdown-protests-trap-partial-struggles

Nor is the ICC is banning comrades who are opposed to lockdown or vaccinations. On the contrary, these are legitimate questions to discuss even though I have deep disagreements about the framework in which these questions are posed.

Unfortunately, Tagore's growing obsession with this question has now led them to side with those whose platform is founded on a rejection of internationalism, supporting national liberation struggles, and are thus a fundamentally anti-proletarian organisation and not communists in any way, shape or form.

For clarity, I'm an ICC member but this is a personal post.

Forumteam
an appeal for comrades to take position...

The ICC does not ban people from its forum lightly, and there are very few cases where we have decided to take such action.  Some time ago we (temporarily) suspended LBird for constantly derailing threads; we have also made it clear that we would not allow a member of the parasitic group the IGCL, which specialises in denigrating the ICC, to post here; and now we have the case of Tagore2. As Demogorgon says in his post, for a long time the ICC put up with Tagore2's accusations about our alleged "cowardice" and "treason"  and made it clear that we would not tolerate this behaviour. Instead Tagore2 has crossed another line, using the forum to advertise his efforts to set up a United Front with organisations of the bourgeoisie. As Demogorgon insists, this is a completely unacceptable use of our forum. 

We also welcome the posts by D-man and Petey supporting our action. D-man clearly lays out the reasons for the ban, in response to Communist's very hasty use of terms like "petty Stalinist bureaucrats". 

We strongly encourage other users of the forum to post here and take position on the ban, because it raises key questions about the nature and function of this forum, in particular, our capacity to maintain overall political control over the forum, to keep it within the framework of proletarian debate, and to outlaw unacceptable attitudes and behaviour. 

 

schalken
Ban is justified

I feel the ban is justified. Tagore's zeal for finding anti-lockdown allies led them to attack sincere comrades and to encourage people to take up with the capitalist left (who they describe as "communists"). If tagore wants to do that, fine, but this isn't the place for it.

I say this without any ill will for tagore. Even though I sometimes wondered why they were here (they seemed to only ever disagree with the majority of posters), and even if I found their positions bizarre, I think they had good intentions. But in the end, calling for unity with leftists groups is objectively counter-revolutionary.

Forumteam
The Forumteam

In answer to the question, posed by Communist in his post of 21 May,"forumteam - who are they?", we can give some clarification.

The Forum is part of the website of the ICC, a political organisations of the working class. It is a means for the intervention of the ICC and for a serious discussion of its ideas. By this Forum the ICC wants to offer a platform for the development the widest debate on the programmatic positions of the working class, which is an essential element for the development of its class consciousness.

As an organisation, it naturally maintains control over its Forum, and in this case it is done by the Forumteam with a definite mandate, which includes for instance

•  encouraging and stimulating (the participation in) the debate by making proposals for certain points to be clarified and for others to be concluded.

• defending the internationalist position on the forum against expressions of nationalism as well as other expressions of bourgeois ideology, such as racism and/or antiracism;

• monitoring the forum on a regular basis, with special attention for the culture of debate, with the intention to intervene if the discussion is degenerating.

Speaking of degenerating, the Forumteam is entitled to intervene and to take the appropriate measures when someone uses the Forum in order to make publicity for counterrevolutionary ideas and organisations.

baboon
Tagore can have no cause for

Tagore can have no cause for complaint. This discussion site is open to all - those with questions that know nothing of politics, those that differ, Stalinist and Trotskyist elements (all elements of capital's left) in order to discuss their positions and defend those of the communist left. But to use this site set up by the ICC for discussion with virtually anyone on anything in order to set up a collaboration with elements of the left goes well beyond any political disagreements.

KT
Yup

"But in the end, calling for unity with leftists groups is objectively counter-revolutionary."  (post#13)
I agree with the Forumteam's decision, conscious of the seriousness of such an act, and support the intervention of comrades such as D-Man, Demogorgon, Petey, schalken and Baboon which explain why it’s necessary.