The Absurdity of the IMT position on Intranets and facebook!

posted 11 Mar 2010, 03:54 by Admin uk   [ updated 11 Mar 2010, 08:19 ]
All comments in Red from Heiko Khoo

4) Resolution on Intranet Forums 
1.This IEC pledges to uphold the democracy and security of the International. All differences and discussions should be channelled through the existing structures of the organisation. 
2.This IEC for reasons of internal democracy and security rejects the setting up of online discussion forums (intranet). Such mechanisms are wide open to security breaches where our internal material would be easily made available to our enemies. This has already occurred. They are in flagrant contradiction with our existing policy making structures. They would be dominated by those with plenty of time and immediate access to the Internet and would tend to exclude those comrades with restricted time and access. This is a recipe for substituting control by elected leading bodies by the rule of unelected and self-appointed cliques. 
3.The "assurances" that it will be "strictly controlled" and "for members only" are worth nothing. In the period that opens up, and especially with our growing success, witch-hunts and attacks on the organisation will become more frequent. As this intranet will make available all our internal material in electronic form, such sites would be a magnet for provocateurs and infiltrators, eager to get their hands on compromising internal material. It greatly increases the risk of expulsions, proscriptions and witch-hunts in a number of countries and also of state repression in others. This is completely unacceptable. 
4.For these reasons, this IEC places a ban on intranet sites and calls on sections to keep all discussions and disagreements within our internal channels. 
[Passed unanimously, Friday March 6]


Remarks on the stupidity of this position. Heiko Khoo

4) Resolution on Intranet Forums 
1.This IEC pledges to uphold the democracy and security of the International. All differences and discussions should be channelled through the existing structures of the organisation.
According to the constitution of the IMT (see official documents) branches and CC members can demand the dissemination of any document within 28 days. (this was designed to allow printing and postage in the pre-internet era.)
The idea that all differences and discussions should be channelled through the existing structures means by definition, that the differences and discussions have to be severely restricted. There are only a few leaders and the meetings of the 'existing structures' meet only occasionally, (British CC 10 times a year, the IEC, 2 times a year, the world congress once every 2 years.) Thus, either all differences must be eliminated before they are discussed,  or the meetings would have to be held so often that they could cope with the quantity of differences and discussions.

Clearly the fact that there have been several splits, walkouts, explusions, and conflicting views, (over China, work in the mass parties, entryism, the transitional society, technology, economics, methods of recruitment and the political development of members,) indicates that the leadership will inevitably consider ALL DIFFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS channelled through them to be an annoyance and hindrance to their work. Annoyance and antagonism increases on all sides, and splits, clashes and explusions follow inevitably.



2.This IEC for reasons of internal democracy and security rejects the setting up of online discussion forums (intranet). (Sadly the IEC do not even know what an Intranet is, it is not an online discussion forum, it is a place to securely share internal information on the internet.)
Such mechanisms are wide open to security breaches where our internal material would be easily made available to our enemies. (by definition an intranet is a secure space not open to the public, therefore if you have concerns about security they must relate to the specific form of security on an intranet not to the principle of insecurity of intranets' themselves. Which members of the IEC know the slightest thing about intranet security issues?) (Which enemies does this refer to? In the book "In Defence of the Realm the Authorised history of MI5" it is 100% clear that the security services have always had access to our documents and correspondence, futhermore having worked with the leading comrades on sensitive issues, I know from first hand experience that the International leaders have zero knowledge or awareness of security and protection from the secret services) This has already occurred. They are in flagrant contradiction with our existing policy making structures. (your policy making structures came into existence before the new means of communications became ubiquitous) They would be dominated by those with plenty of time and immediate access to the Internet and would tend to exclude those comrades with restricted time and access. (This is a law concerning any political activity, however this is falsely presented, for if someone has little time, they are more likely to have time to turn on their computer at home than attend a meeting in Spain every two years, or even a weekly branch meeting) In fact, in the USA for example, the average adult spends 3 hrs on the Internet every day, therefore participation via the internet or an Intranet, opens up far greater avenues for participation than a branch meeting could ever do and if it supplements and cross ferilizes a branch, that is excellent.
This is a recipe for substituting control by elected leading bodies by the rule of unelected and self-appointed cliques. (This is utter stupidity! In fact it is a means of enhancing the intellectual abilities of the organization and organizational power by bringing otherwise isolated and separated individual comrades who normally only meet once a week or less into daily participation in the tendency on a world scale.)
3.The "assurances" that it will be "strictly controlled" and "for members only" are worth nothing. (what does are worth noting mean? Are they worth impementing?) In the period that opens up, and especially with our growing success, witch-hunts and attacks on the organisation will become more frequent.

(
The IS keep harping on about the security of the comrades in Denmark! I was expelled for endangering the work of the Danish comrades, who claim they are under mortal threat! (I am being sarcastic here) As far as I know Denmark is one of the most free bourgeois democratic states in the world. All the leading comrades are on facebook, their web sites link to Marxist.com, they publish documents in their own names for our web site and then pretend that they face state and bureaucratic repression, comrades please wake up! The same stupid argument was used about work in the Greek left wing coalition! Perhaps these comrades should try to work for a few days in real underground conditions, then they will see exactly why underground conditions ABOVE ALL OTHERS requires intranets to collaborate and function effectively under dictatorships.

As this intranet will make available all our internal material in electronic form, such sites would be a magnet for provocateurs and infiltrators, eager to get their hands on compromising internal material. (which people are they and what is the character this "compromising internal material"?) It greatly increases the risk of expulsions, proscriptions and witch-hunts in a number of countries and also of state repression in others. This is completely unacceptable.
This is a further absurdity! One suspects that the real motivation behind this luddite and ignorant outlook is that the leadership fear a loss of authority through open and ongoing internal discussions. Discussions where their ideas can be subject to systematic cross-examination by many comrades at once, rather than at rally or at show trial type "discussions of differences". Therefore the leadership want to generate a blind faith in themselves based on the idea that they are facing state repression, witchunts and so on. Therefore to them discussions are an irritant. After all is Alan Woods not Karl Marx, Lenin and Trotsky in one person?

4.For these reasons, this IEC places a ban on intranet sites and calls on sections to keep all discussions and disagreements within our internal channels. 
[Passed unanimously, Friday March 6]


Comments