ICC Open Meeting. 5 October 2024
- This topic has 21 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 2 days, 2 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Saturday 5 October, 2pm
Calthorpe Arms, 252 Grays Inn Rd, London WC1X 8JR
A discussion meeting without a set theme but which can take up any aspects of revolutionary politics. Comrades are welcome to suggest topics for discussion in advance: write to uk@internationalism.org
International Communist Current
I went along to this, interesting discussion on the state of the world (although one visitor was there to discuss sectiana and micro-disputes from the 1970’s).
For a bright moment, it seemed we’d been re-admitted to the proletarian milieu, but it ended up with us being confirmed as being relegated to the swamp.
Why are we allowing the ICC to advertise their meetings here? I think it was a previous moderator who made the decision, based on the idea that we are part of the “thin red line”. It should be obvious that any commonality is superficial and there are plenty of significant differences.
“Why are we allowing the ICC to advertise their meetings here? I think it was a previous moderator who made the decision, based on the idea that we are part of the “thin red line”.”
Unless something changed after I left, belonging to a supposed “thin red line” was never a requirement for being able to post in the forum, or this section specifically. As explained in the section description; “Such postings do not imply political approval of, or agreement with, the SPGB. Inappropriate posts may be deleted.”
Knowing about meetings of other groups is a useful thing. Surely you would want to talk to these people, at least sometimes?
The section description was written by the same moderator. The Socialist Standard wouldn’t advertise their meetings, unless the SPGB was involved, and I don’t see why this forum should be different.
This action was initiated by one member. Democratic accountability requires majority consent – something the ICC despises.
“This action was initiated by one member. Democratic accountability requires majority consent – something the ICC despises.”
Any action needs to be initiated by someone. But at the time (10 years ago!) the committee as a whole was fine with it – that’s how working on a committee works. You’re not suggesting that every committee should have to put every decision to a majority vote of the whole membership are you?
Personally, I think forum posts are of a very different nature to things printed in an official publication. I guess if you’re that bothered you can raise it through the party’s democratic channels – but it’s already been like this for 10 years!
I’m no longer a member so it doesn’t affect me. It would be a shame to lose a place to see where meetings are listed though..
The section description was written by the same moderator. The Socialist Standard wouldn’t advertise their meetings, unless the SPGB was involved, and I don’t see why this forum should be different.
_____________________________But the forum IS different, surely – almost by definition- I don’t really see the problem with ICC advertising meetings here. As DJP says it has benefits to us as well
Robbo, you don’t say how the forum is different or why allowing the ICC to advertise their meetings benefits us.
I would make two points.
First, allowing ICC posts could give the casual observer the impression that we have an affinity. That is most definitely not the case.
Second, some people don’t like the hostility clause and want it removed. They could point to the posts in question and say that, in practice, the clause has been rendered null and void.
I think if you take Lew’s argument to its logical conclusion you would have to close the public forum.
To think that allowing a post to appear in a comment section or forum implies an all-out endorsement is a gross misunderstanding of how these are generally understood.
The general scope and purposes of the forums is:
“The SPGB web forums are operated by the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) and are intended to promote discussion of matters related to the SPGB, the World Socialist Movement, and socialism in general. Everyone may read the forums, and posting access is available to all registered users who accept and abide by this agreement. Registration is free.”
None members may join, and may bring to other forum users attention things relevant to socialism, including events organised by organisations we disagree with.
In this case, as a result of such a notice, I was able to go along and have a pleasant discussion, hear the ICC case and put the party case in opposition.
My final contribution on this thread. My argument has been that allowing a Leninist sect to regularly advertise its meetings here could give the casual observer the impression that we have something in common. We do not. That’s it. That’s all.
I’m glad Bill had a pleasant time at the ICC meeting, even though they referred to him and us as “the swamp”. We have debated with the ICC a number times over the years. In the debate where our speaker was Barry McNeeny, the ICC speaker stated that because the SPGB is a counter-revolutionary organisation its members could expect to be killed in the proletarian uprising.
The ICC, as an organisation, are more than half mad. Everybody knows that. But, especially in these post-pandemic times, face to face meetings and discussions are a very important thing. I think it is useful to be able to know what is going on, in order to discuss, defend, and propagate socialist ideas.
I cam confirm Lew’s account of that debate. Barry McNeeny revealed that it was ICC policy to establish a sort of ‘Cheka’. The ICC speaker looked as if he had soiled himself and one of their members in the audience went into hysterics (a woman). If she had tried anything on with me I would have knocked her block off.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.