ICC public forum, London 15 April: The Trump election and the crumbling of capitalist world order
- This topic has 23 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
"In the face of the decline of the US, and also of growing class, racial, religious and ethnic divisions, Trump wants to unite the capitalist nation behind its ruling class in the name of a new Americanism. The United States, according to Trump, has become the main victim of the rest of the world. He claims that, while the US has been exhausting itself and its resources maintaining world order, all the rest have been profiting from this order at the expense of “God’s own country”. The Trumpistas are thinking here not only of the Europeans or the East Asians who have been flooding the American market with their products. One of the main “exploiters” of the United States, according to Trump, is Mexico, which he accuses of exporting its surplus population into the American social welfare system, while at the same time developing its own industry to such an extent that its automobile production is overtaking that of its northern neighbour.
This amounts to a new and virulent form of nationalism, reminiscent of “underdog” German nationalism after World War I and the Treaty of Versailles. The orientation of this form of nationalism is no longer to justify the imposing of a world order by America. Its orientation is to itself put in question the existing world order ..."
Date: Saturday 15 April 2017, 2pm-6pm
Place: Lucas Arms, 245A Grays Inn Rd, Kings Cross, London WC1X 8QY
The ICC will begin the meeting with a presentation based on two recent articles:
· a more general one on the question of populism | International Communist Current
· the article containing the quote above, analysing the Trump election: The Trump election and the crumbling of capitalist world order | International Communist Current
After that – plenty of time to discuss. All welcome!I wonder what trend the ICC is following now, because they have jumped from trend into another trend. The last time that I read about them they were Anarchists, and they have had too many splits. They have written some articles that are worthy to read. They took a reasonable stand regarding the Cuban revolution and the so called Boliviarian revolution in Latin America. https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/subject/international-communist-current. These are some articles that we have written about the ICChttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1977/no-878-october-1977/old-fallacies-look-international-communist-current
Probably, it would be much better having discussion with members of others political organization such as the ICC, than having trolls and spammers in this forum. One ex-member of the ICC is a member of the SPC
Alf wrote:And what is the SPC?Socialist Party of Canada, one of the companion parties of the World Socialist Movement.
Alf wrote:I wonder where you read that we were anarchists? And what is the SPC?Here http://fractioncommuniste.org/esp/bci02/bci02_3.php. and also you have had several splits. I know several members of the ICC from Spain ( CCi,) and some of members were subscribed to a forum of the WSM, and several of them were advocating for Anarchism ) but you analysis over Anarchism is totally wrong, because Marx was also an Anarchist. You are basing your thought on the definition of Anarchism made by Joseph Stalin, but in the same book he described socailism in the proper way much better than Lenin. The SPC is the Socialist Party of Canada, a companion party of the World Socialist Movement ( We use the expression Worldly instead of International because we do not support the existence of nation in a socialist society, and international , means between nations , or inter nations) That is something that I explained to a Castroist who was laughing about the expression World Socialism
Marx was also an Anarchist.
Evidence?
In 1844 Marx wrote that "the existence of the state and the existence of slavery are inseparable" – "The King of Prussia and Social Reform"Again, as Engels wrote in a letter to Bebel in March 1875, "Marx's book against Proudhon and later the Communist Manifesto directly declare that with the introduction of the socialist order of society the state will dissolve itself and disappear".Then, in a circular against the Bakunin prepared for the First International in 1875, Marx wrote: "To all socialists anarchy means this: the aim of the proletarian movement–that is to say the abolition of social classes–once achieved, the power of the state, which now serves only to keep the vast majority of producers under the yoke of a small minority of exploiters, will vanish, and the functions of government become purely administrative"
Bob Andrews wrote:Evidence?
Real communists-socialists are Anarchists. Marx adopted many conceptions from the French Anarchists, such as a Stateles society and , each according to their needs., and classless society, those are Anarchists principles. He argued against Proudhom because he was an indivudalistic anarchists, but he was not rejecting Anarchism, and he also rejected the conspiracy theory of Bakuninhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/rubel/1973/marx-anarchism.htm
Bob Andrews wrote:Evidence?
Also, I can say that he was an Anthropologist, both were proto-Leninists, and proto-Mensheviks, and they had Blanquist stands, Marx supported bourgoise revolutions,, in certain occasion Engels adopted the subconsumist theory, and he was the economist before Marx started to study Political Economy. It is a just matter of opening our minds and to look for the proper sources. His stand regarding the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was wrong, and it was not going to work during the XIX century and does not work now either, The different between Marx and Bakunin was not based on the DOP, was based on the proto-Leninist concepttion of Bakunin, versus the political action of the working class, but he did not reject Anarchismhttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2013/no-1311-november-2013/karl-marx-anthropologist
Alf wrote:I wonder where you read that we were anarchists? And what is the SPC?And here: http://fractioncommuniste.org/esp/bci03/bci03_8.php. The CCI has branches in Venezuela, Argentina, Peru and Spain, and they had one in the Caribbean
Perhaps I can help you out. Early in their lifelong collaboration Marx and Engels produced a manuscript largely devoted to the individualist philosophy of the anarchist Max Stirner. Both men concluded that Stirner was a top bloke. Marx pinched most of his economic theories from the anarchist JP Proudhon. In January 1849 Proudhon opened his Peoples Bank which extended interest-free credit. After two whole months it went tits up. Marx was hugely impressed.Bakunin's 'Statism and Anarchy' convinced Marx that his own political position was muddle-headed,and he became a disciple of Bakunin. It was from this time we can confidently refer to Marx as an anarchist.Like your good self I've never been a slave to the facts.But does it matter?
Bob Andrews wrote:Perhaps I can help you out. Early in their lifelong collaboration Marx and Engels produced a manuscript largely devoted to the individualist philosophy of the anarchist Max Stirner. Both men concluded that Stirner was a top bloke. Marx pinched most of his economic theories from the anarchist JP Proudhon. In January 1849 Proudhon opened his Peoples Bank which extended interest-free credit. After two whole months it went tits up. Marx was hugely impressed.Bakunin's 'Statism and Anarchy' convinced Marx that his own political position was muddle-headed,and he became a disciple of Bakunin. It was from this time we can confidently refer to Marx as an anarchist.Like your good self I've never been a slave to the facts.But does it matter?You are not helping anybody because what you have written shows that you are totally confused, or you are trying to re-write history., you are talking about The Poverty of Philosophy, which I have read. Marx did not adopt any so called Anarchists ideas from Proudhon, because he was not an Anarchists, he was a free marketeer, and an anti-communist, on the contrary, Marx rejected most of his reactionary ideas. Prouhon never advocated for a stateless, and classless society which are Anarchists principles. This is our opinion on Proudhon:https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2011/no-1283-july-2011/book-reviews-property-theft-marxism-and-world-politihttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1980/no-911-july-1980/book-review-karl-marx-and-anarchistsMarx did not become a disciple of Bakunin either, I do not know how you came to that conclusion, it is the opposite way, Bakunin supported the conception of a minority taking power, and secret society, and conspiracy theory, on his conception Bakunin probably is close to Leninism. Marx did not support any of those conceptions,( and it is not Anarchy, it is Anarchism ) The conception of Marx was based on the political action of the majority of the workers, that is totally opposite conception of what Bakunin had.Many Anarchist groups have said that the controversy was between the Dictatorship of the Proletariat versus Anarchism, and it is a distortion, the real debate was between the political action of the workers class, versus the conspiracy theory of BakuninThis writting would be a much better description of Marx's Anarchism, which has nothing to do with Proudhon, or Bakunin:https://www.marxists.org/archive/rubel/1973/marx-anarchism.htm
The ICC ( or CCI ) is still holding the old Blanquists and inmature conceptions of Marx and Engels, and rejecting the anti-Blanquists, anti proto-Mensheviks, and mature conceptions of Marx and Engels, and some reformists and state capitalist measure of the Communist Manifest, and most of those conception were later rejected and improved by Marx and Engels. It was the same things done by Vladimir LeninThey reject certain aspects of Leninism, but they continue supporting the Bolsheviks and the so called Socialist revolution of Russia, and Lenin wrong conception of the state, and the so called socialist state, and some others split started to flirt with Anarchism, and despite that they never held to the view of a Stateless, Classless, and Moneyless society, and they continued with the division between Communism and Socialism which is the same view of Lenin, but it is not the view of Marx and EngelsThey have rejected Trostky and some of the conception of the Opposition, but they continue indicating that the problem of socialist Rusia was stalinism, the same stand of Trotsky who until the last day of his life was saying that the Soviet Union had a burocratic state, but that the economical base was socialist. His wife Sedovia was thrown out from the Fourth International for holding political view different to her husband, she did recognized that the Soviet economy was based on State CapitalismThe ICC is like the conception of Raya Dunayeska, CLR James and some of their followers who rejected the vanguard party but they did not reject Leninism completely, and held their view on the young writting of Marx, and are still holding the idea that state capitalism in Russia started in 1930, during the time of Stalin, it is the same view held by the Maoists, and the Enverists ( Hoxhaists ) but they kept Stalinism.It is what in some places like Colombia, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Dominican Republic wil call lt as Ajiaco, or Sancocho,( or a Gumbo Soup ) which is a soup mixed with different type of meats, tuberculo ( root vegetables ) , spices, and other type of vegetables, and a bottle of Aguardiente, and Rum to digest it
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.