Does the ICC believe in insurrection?

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
radicalchains
Does the ICC believe in insurrection?
Printer-friendly version

Do ICC militants and sympathisers believe in insurrection as a special organised element of communist revolution? Or more left to 'spontaneity', or not necessary at all? If it is necesssary, does it have to be internationally coordinated (take place in several or many states)?

 

lem_
the political apparatus has

the political apparatus has to be absolished / seized by workers, right? on the grounds that their representatives aren't voted in, then they would have to be physically assumed, whether or not there is any violence involved. right

i'm not an official sympathizer btw ehha

lem_
i just find it difficult NOT

i just find it difficult NOT to sympthaize with them.

"dual power" is the leninist / anarchist term for two competing organs, the soviets etc. and the political aparatus of the bourgeoise that we currently enjoy.

lenin saw it as inherently unstable, whereas it seems at least some libertarians would argue that the two are merely competitors.

obviously the russian revolution featured an insurrection, and if it's a case of the annihilation either of worker's control or bourgeoise democracy, then there will surely IMVHO be an actual struggle outside the place of work and not just to raise the consciousness of the soviets i mean.

so yeah... this is simply from wikipedia tho. also, i can't see HOW it would need to be internationally happening at the same time, even if this woul be desirable to avoid international war. as to if it is spontaneous, that's again a matter of praticality beause ideally the party of class conscious workers would be able to guide events, without of course assuming political control over te councils.

i do hope i don't sound like a lunatic btw, it's not my question i'm not playing general haha. my point is just that common sense dictates that the police, army and goverment won't just dissolve because of a mass strike, unless the mass strike seeks to dissolve them, be that through a violent or non violent insurrection it wouldn't be a gradual erosion IMVHO.

Alf
Agree with lem that the mass

Agree with lem that the mass strike isn't enough and there is a phase of insurrection in which the workers actually take power. At this stage such  actions are not merely 'spontaneous' but require a high level of planning. This article may help: 

 

https://en.internationalism.org/wr/310/october-1917

radicalchains
Blighty

Thanks very much for that link Alf. I suppose the answer is a resounding 'YES'. I find it hard to envisage a situation in Britain similar to that of Russia in 1917 though. Perhaps an independent Scotland or Wales of the future with a separate army might cause a spark, or troops on the streets of London or Manchester but I can't think what is going to press the ruling class to take such a decision. A split ruling class and plenty of class struggle with an economy in stagnation might be the recipe?

Redacted
Oooh, rc, this touches on

Oooh, rc, this touches on something I've been meaning to bring up recently. The thing is called "Radical Flank Effect", a sociological term I find a bit controversial. Will maybe do a new thread soon.

radicalchains
I look forward to it Jamal. I

I look forward to it Jamal. I was reading the Seventh Congress (Stuttgart 1907) of the Second International on militarism. Lenin made the comment agreeing with Luxemburg:

 The essential thing is not merely to prevent war, but to utilise the crisis created by war in order to hasten the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. 

But how and in what way do we utilise the crisis, is the working class or communist minority even in a position to do so?

7th Congress resolution https://marxists.anu.edu.au/history/international/social-democracy/1907/militarism.htm

Lenin reply http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1907/oct/20.htm#bkV13E041

(last paragraphs)

Redacted
Rc, sorry for not getting

Rc, sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I ended up reading the rest of the 50-page paper I mentioned, and honestly it ended up being a bunch of bullshit. I have to say I still find myself intrigued by it for whatever reason, though. Here's the abstract:

The Strategic Logic of the Radical Flank Effect: Theorizing Power in Divided Social Movements wrote:

Abstract: Social movements are commonly divided into rival moderate and radical factions that, despite a shared commitment to a common cause, differ on what specific goals they should seek and/or the tactics best suited to achieving those goals. This study examines the consequences of this internal rivalry between moderate and militant groups by investigating how strategic choices by movement groups and the state affect intra-movement balance of power. I argue that factors within the movement and external to the movement are consequential, and that uncertainty and the lack of perfect and complete information play key roles in predicting when moderates are more likely to dominate militants and vice versa. In general, moderates are most likely to benefit from divided movement dynamics if they are able to issue clear and credible signals that differentiate their approach from the militants to states that feel weak and uncertain of their power. When confronting a strong state, however, no group is likely to improve on its previous position and all can face pressure sufficient to depress the movement as a whole. But it is when the power and political will of the state to confront movements is unclear, both to the states themselves as well as the movements that confront them, that radicals have the best chance of seizing control of the movement—an outcome that is further intensified by miscalculations and information asymmetries among actors.


 

 

radicalchains
Jamal, I think that is just

Jamal, I think that is just using a different language for things we already know. A verbose and technical one at that! 

lem_
> I find it hard to envisage

> I find it hard to envisage a situation in Britain similar to that of Russia in 1917 though. Perhaps an independent Scotland or Wales of the future with a separate army might cause a spark, or troops on the streets of London or Manchester but I can't think what is going to press the ruling class to take such a decision

sorry, i can't quote here still... what if the banking system collapsed and all the banks stopped working. people would freak, whether or not that's possible the hysteria would be tangible if it did. and we like good communists think that cou,d start an international domino effect, right?

well, that's not so much on the cards now, but what if the public finances burst. in ten yaars time cameron appears on tv claiming that despitevo voter outrage the health and police services are now owned by the german electorate.

it's not impossible to envision huge civil unrest in the future.