Communist groups that aren't the icc

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
lem_
Communist groups that aren't the icc
Printer-friendly version

I head of a few, dunno if five or so years since then they still exist... What are relations like between them / you and them?

radicalchains
My thoughts

There seem to be very small groups here and there and some anarchists. The problem is I don't think you can make a list that is set in stone because the politics of individuals and groups change. Across the board relations don't seem to be that good, well that's the impression anyway. I think that's why there has been emphasis and a will to encourage discussion groups where different individuals and groups can come togther as part of a process to build or repair relations.

lem_
Like I was trying to say to

Like I was trying to say to alf, I wonder if the disunity really matters? After all the icc seem to be banking on such a voracious change to class consciousness, so quickly and with such high stakes, that I can't see what it matters if the movement doesn't see eye to eye. I'd be nice but theoretical and structural questions would be more important. Simply because the individuals concerned are going to be swept away in any such sea change. As long as we're not talking about violent and structural opposition between groups, would it really matter??

lem_
I tend to agree that the time

I tend to agree that the time scale is short... Not just cos of marx's authority or pascal's wager. Perhaps mostly paranoia, with a pinch of aesthetics (modern art cannot be repeated or gone beyond without revolution?).

Theres definitely things to learn from the rest. What do the posters here make of gramsci's theories? They always struck me as hot air - what isn't trivial. His arguments against philosophical materialim, like that against historical laws, seem more confused than anything. I actually do believe that Marx is talking about social "reality" often when he uses that word. But it would be odd if there were nothing else. Likewise if Marxism were really just clever propaganda - seems quite a right wing of capital idea. Anyway if revolution is necessary in only a ethico-ideological way I might simply restate my personal distaste for those who follow gramsci. Opposing yourself to the bourgeois academy without being either a truly exceptional scholar, or quite internally incapacitating the educating system you come into contact with... Seems naive anyway. I still want to read Althusser tho :D

 

Edit I hope everyone who read this understood it? When I talk about profoundly talented "left wing" philosophers I mean e.g. deleuze, merleau-ponty, perhaps lefort even... I see nothing of their cultural power in gramsci. I would even go as far as to say that denying socialism or barbarism, is the biggest mistake a Marxist can make. And that gramscians understand neither the depth of present barbarism nor the threat of it in the future. I can settle with either - but not mere wishes for the working class. I would say that the committed MERE WISH for communism is intellectually dishonest, and so obviously so that it would compromise the individual in question as a person! I would like and see lots of things as desirable... And if I commit myself to them then good on me! But without that necessity, my wishes are as assine as anything else in my alienated miserable - world. IMHO.

Redacted
Trotskyist often talk about

Trotskyist often talk about having no interest in "regroupment." That should tell us something right there...

lem_
well i didn't say it's not

well i didn't say it's not interesting or desrable or worth working for, just that (it strikes me that) it's not so important.

plus the motivations there could be different - dogmatic rather than strategic.