In the Trotskyist confessional box

[Devrim]

The Sparts admit they were wrong over Haiti:


27 April 2010 Statement of the International Executive Committee of the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist)
Repudiating Our Position on Haiti Earthquake
A Capitulation to U.S. Imperialism
In its articles on the Haitian earthquake, Workers Vanguard, the newspaper of the Spartacist League/U.S., committed a betrayal of the fundamental principle of opposition to one’s “own” imperialist rulers. In addition to justifying the U.S. imperialist troops as essential to the aid effort, these articles polemicized against the principled and correct position of demanding the immediate withdrawal of the troops. This line was carried in a number of presses in other ICL sections, becoming the de facto line of the International Communist League. Without a public accounting and correction, we would be far down the road to our destruction as a revolutionary party. From the beginning the only revolutionary internationalist position was to demand that all U.S./UN troops get out of Haiti!


http://icl-fi.org/english/leaflets/rehaiti.html

Devrim

[fredbergen]

Read what the Trotskyists wrote -- the original, and still the best:

No to the Imperialist Occupation – U.S./U.N. Forces Out!
U.S. Puts Haiti into Receivership
(Under Gouverneur Bill Clinton)
The Obama administration saw the Haiti earthquake as a golden opportunity to repair the U.S.’ image, badly tarnished by the imperialist war and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Democrats in power in Washington would pose as leaders of a people-friendly empire, in contrast to the Darth Vader-like Republican regime of George Bush II. But behind all the talk of “helping” Haiti, what they actually did was what Yankee imperialists always do: send paratroops to occupy the Haitian capital and “secure” the country against unrest. From its control of air traffic at the Port-au-Prince airport the U.S. military actively blocked aid from reaching the Haitian people, likely resulting in thousands of deaths. Longer term, the U.S. wants to tighten imperialist control of the strategically located country, occupied since 2004 at Washington’s behest by a United Nations mercenary force. At a March 31 “donors conference” at the U.N. , a Haiti Interim Reconstruction Committee (HIRC) was set up to be in charge of rebuilding the country, displacing the Haitian government. Former U.S. president William Jefferson Clinton will be the neocolonial gouverneur of Haiti on behalf of Washington and Wall Street. U.S. Puts Haiti into Receivership (http://www.internationalist.org/ushaitireceivership1004.html) (11 April 2010)

Trying to Justify Support for U.S. Invasion
SL Twists and Turns on Haiti
In the wake of the earthquake that devastated Haiti’s capital, as Washington sent thousands of U.S. combat troops and a naval armada to secure the country, the Spartacist League ostentatiously declared it was not calling for withdrawal of U.S. and U.N. military forces. The SL claimed they were essential to distributing aid when in fact the U.S. military was actively blocking relief flights and refusing to release aid. While peddling the Pentagon's cover story for U.S. reoccupation of the country, in four successive articles the SL hysterically denounced the Internationalist Group for demanding that the U.S./U.N. occupation forces get out of Haiti. After trying for weeks to depict the 82nd Airborne paratroopers as humanitarian aid workers, the SL now calls for U.S. troops out now -- but not then, when it was necessary to combat illusions in the imperialist occupiers. We systematically take apart the SL's amalgams, straw men, baits, non sequiturs and smokescreens. Its grotesque apology for U.S. imperialism reflects the politics of Max Shachtman, not Leon Trotsky. SL Twists and Turns on Haiti (http://www.internationalist.org/sltwistshaiti1004.html) (9 April 2010)

Washington Exploits Earthquake to Reoccupy the Country
Haiti: Workers Solidarity, Yes!
Imperialist Occupation, No!
Stop Blocking Aid to Haitian People – U.S./U.N. Forces Get Out!
The January 12 earthquake in Haiti that devastated the capital city, leaving well over 100,000 dead and a million homeless, was one of the worst geological calamities of modern times. The earthquake was a natural disaster, but the horrendous death toll and monumental destruction were caused by capitalism and imperialism. Now the human suffering has been enormously compounded by to the militarization of the relief effort and reoccupation of Haiti by the United States. More than a dozen flights by aid groups, carrying rescue squads, tons of medical supplies and entire field hospitals, were refused permission to land at the Port-au-Prince airport by U.S. military air controllers who are now in charge. Food was already stocked in warehouses, but agencies refused to distribute it for fear of “riots.” The media blitz is a propaganda war to embellish the image of U.S. imperialism. This phony humanitarianism are being used to disguise a new U.S. occupation of Haiti. We demand an end to the imperialist occupation, U.S./U.N. forces get out of Haiti and stop blocking entry of Haitian refugees. Haiti: Workers Solidarity, Yes! Imperialist Occupation, No! (http://www.internationalist.org/haitiworkerssoldarity1001.html) (20 January 2010)


(Français) Haïti: Solidarité ouvrière, oui! Occupation impérialiste, non! (http://www.internationalist.org/haitisolidariteouvriere1001.html) (20 janvier 2010)
(Español) Haití: ¡Solidaridad obrera, sí! ¡Ocupación imperialista, no! (http://www.internationalist.org/haitisolidaridadobrera1001.html) (20 de enero de 2010)

Kick U.N., U.S. and Brazilian Occupation Troops Out of Haiti!
LQB Says: Workers Solidarity, Yes!
Military Occupation, No!
The Liga Quarta Internacionalista do Brasil, section of the League for the Fourth International, has published a special issue of its newspaper Vanguarda Operária devoted to Haiti and the LQB’s fight for the expulsion of the Brazilian expeditionary force commanding the U.N. troops occupying the Caribbean island nation on behalf of U.S. imperialism. In the introduction (translated here) to this collection of articles, the LQB notes that “left-wing” bourgeois Latin American governments headed by Lula in Brazil, Morales in Bolivia and Correa in Ecuador have been collaborating with imperialism as its flunkeys and “capitães de mato” (slave catchers), in repressing the combative Haitian population. LQB Says: Workers Solidarity, Yes! Military Occupation, No! (http://www.internationalist.org/lqbhaitisoldarity1001.html) (26 January 2010)

Spartacist League Backs U.S. Imperialist Invasion of Haiti
The latest issue of Workers Vanguard, newspaper of the Spartacist League, has a front-page story that supports the presence of United States and United Nations occupation troops in Haiti. WV buys the U.S. rulers’ cover story for their latest invasion as supposedly aiding the desperate Haitian masses left homeless, hungry and in dire need of medical attention in the wake of the devastating earthquake. The article ends with an apoplectic attack on the Internationalist Group for exposing the imperialist lies and demanding “U.S./U.N. Forces Get Out!” This is a deeply significant step for the SL, marking the point at which they have gone over from bending under pressure from the ruling class to outright apology for imperialism. Spartacist League Backs U.S. Imperialist Invasion of Haiti (http://www.internationalist.org/slbackshaitiinvasion1001.html) (30 January 2010)

Haiti: Battle Over Starvation Wages and Neocolonial Occupation (http://www.internationalist.org/haitiminimumwage0911.html) (November 2009)

[RED DAVE]

What the fuck were the Sparts thinking? Is this typical of them these days?

RED DAVE

[Devrim]

Read what the Trotskyists wrote

Get a grip. Your split from a split from a split are not the Trotskyists. There are lots of Trotskyists. This sort of thing really irritates me. It is like when the SWP say 'socialists believe', or the IMT says 'Marxists think'.

Devrim

[KC]

At least they admitted they were wrong and corrected it; I don't think I've ever seen a party do that before. Usually they're more willing to put in more work defending and "clarifying" than they are to actually think critically.

[fredbergen]

Get a grip. Your split from a split from a split are not the Trotskyists. There are lots of Trotskyists.

Trotskyism is not just a subjective opinion or a "genealogical" derivation of organizations. It is the upholding and practice of a particular political program: Marxism. You may not agree, but the organizations that claim to be, or are said to be "Trotskyist," all have different politics and different methods and histories that flow from these politics. So either "Trotskyism" is a label that means very little and is applied in a facile way to all sorts of contradictory things, or it is a scientific term. I choose the latter. If one wishes to make an honest, systematic investigation it is possible to see which organization upholds Marxist principles and which organizations betray them. I call the League for the Fourth International "the Trotskyists" because as far as I have been able to determine, they are the only Trotskyist organization. I think the recent shameful gyrations of the ICL, which claims to be Trotskyist, reinforce my contention quite well.

[Barry Lyndon]

Trotskyism is not just a subjective opinion or a "genealogical" derivation of organizations. It is the upholding and practice of a particular political program: Marxism. You may not agree, but the organizations that claim to be, or are said to be "Trotskyist," all have different politics and different methods and histories that flow from these politics. So either "Trotskyism" is a label that means very little and is applied in a facile way to all sorts of contradictory things, or it is a scientific term. I choose the latter. If one wishes to make an honest, systematic investigation it is possible to see which organization upholds Marxist principles and which organizations betray them. I call the League for the Fourth International "the Trotskyists" because as far as I have been able to determine, they are the only Trotskyist organization. I think the recent shameful gyrations of the ICL, which claims to be Trotskyist, reinforce my contention quite well.

You know, I have a lot of respect for the Trotskyist tradition, but one of the reasons I stopped identifying as a orthodox Trotskyist is shown right here- constant splitting into smaller and smaller sects over hair-splitting theoretical differences, with each sect declaring themselves not only the sole 'true' Trotskyists, but the only 'true' Marxists, based on who can follow every sentence that Trotsky wrote like holy scripture. This has more in common with feuding religious confessions then any kind of actual political program. I fail to see how supporting NAMBLA, or acting as apologists for North Korea and Dengist China as 'workers states', has anything in common with Marxism or Leninism.
You are a foaming at the mouth fanatic. I feel sorry for you.

[fredbergen]

Barry: What differences do you think are insignificant, "hair-splitting"? Is support for, or opposition to your "own" imperialist ruling class's colonial depredations an insignificant quibble? If not, what is, in your opinion?

[Barry Lyndon]

Barry: What differences do you think are insignificant, "hair-splitting"? Is support for, or opposition to your "own" imperialist ruling class's colonial depredations an insignificant quibble? If not, what is, in your opinion?

Oh, come off it. You think the PSL is 'pro-imperialist' because it carried the slogan 'bring the troops home now' at antiwar marches. People from your organization are on film lying about Noam Chomsky, claiming that he supported the sanctions on Iraq and the bombing of Yugoslavia when if you read anything he wrote you would know he supported no such thing.

Basically, 'real Marxism' is everything that your organization says and does, there is nothing 'scientific' about it, including defending pedophiles, forming the 'Yuri Andropov Brigade', and dressing up in Civil War uniforms.

I talk to the Spartacist League from time to time, they sometimes set up shop at my university to hawk 'Workers Vanguard'. I will say that they are exceptionally well informed about Marxist theory and history, unlike the ISO. But their dogmatism, ultra-sectarianism, and vicious attacks and lies against anyone who deviates from their line drives people away.

[Proletarian Ultra]

I talk to the Spartacist League from time to time, they sometimes set up shop at my university to hawk 'Workers Vanguard'. I will say that they are exceptionally well informed about Marxist theory and history, unlike the ISO. But their dogmatism, ultra-sectarianism, and vicious attacks and lies against anyone who deviates from their line drives people away.

One thing I will say about the Sparts: Workers Vanguard is cheap as shit for a lot of issues ($10 for 22 a year). I give it as stocking-stuffers to my reactionary relatives. :thumbup1:

[chegitz guevara]

Trotskyism is not just a subjective opinion or a "genealogical" derivation of organizations. It is the upholding and practice of a particular political program: Marxism. You may not agree, but the organizations that claim to be, or are said to be "Trotskyist," all have different politics and different methods and histories that flow from these politics. So either "Trotskyism" is a label that means very little and is applied in a facile way to all sorts of contradictory things, or it is a scientific term. I choose the latter. If one wishes to make an honest, systematic investigation it is possible to see which organization upholds Marxist principles and which organizations betray them. I call the League for the Fourth International "the Trotskyists" because as far as I have been able to determine, they are the only Trotskyist organization. I think the recent shameful gyrations of the ICL, which claims to be Trotskyist, reinforce my contention quite well.

Yep, they are the only true Christians.

[Sam_b]

Trotskyism is not just a subjective opinion or a "genealogical" derivation of organizations. It is the upholding and practice....[EXACT SAME SPEECH THAT ANY OF THE THREE MEMBERS WILL GIVE YOU]

I don't think many workers partcularly care.

[Wanted Man]

But their dogmatism, ultra-sectarianism, and vicious attacks and lies against anyone who deviates from their line drives people away.

Are they even interested in recruitment of any kind? I always picture them more as a kind of left-wing version of the Westboro Baptist Church, in that they are not at all interested in winning converts, but simply telling us that we're all going to hell.

[chegitz guevara]

In the hands of people like Fred, Trotskyism passed from science to religious dogma.

People like him are why more and more comrades are abandoning Trotskyism for a more modern revolutionary Marxism.

[Q]

In the hands of people like Fred, Trotskyism passed from science to religious dogma.

People like him are why more and more comrades are abandoning Trotskyism for a more modern revolutionary Marxism.

It's sad that people like Fred are so common too and not just in fringe groups as the sparts or their splits. They destroy any potential interest workers might have in Marxist ideas.

[Weezer]

Sectarianism within a sect within Marxism is pathetic.

[Sam_b]

I think my favourite line came from a copy of the IBT's '1917' (or at least I think its the IBT that put out that paper) that I picked up at Marxism 2006 for a laught. It proudly proclaimed that "we are not a splinter. We are a splinter within a splinter!"

[blake 3:17]

I have a soft spot for the BT. Their members do participate in some actions and operate in relatively good faith. I think they're ultraleft but que sera sera.

The Sparts are just entirely useless. I pick up their paper when I can -- it has amazing stuff on particular issues in Marxist/Trotskyist theory but they manage to figure out justifications for not participatin in anything remotely useful.

This flipflop on Haiti reflects their detachment from reality. Their commitment is to an ultraleft resolutionary socialism.

[blake 3:17]

This has more in common with feuding religious confessions then any kind of actual political program.

Yeah it's essentially a religious sectarianism. It's all totally backwards looking without any sense of activity on the ground. I look at their stuff and agree with large portions of it, and they manage to make whatever of value they produce worthless and meaningless.

[Q]

I think my favourite line came from a copy of the IBT's '1917' (or at least I think its the IBT that put out that paper) that I picked up at Marxism 2006 for a laught. It proudly proclaimed that "we are not a splinter. We are a splinter within a splinter!"

A fuller quote (http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no28/no28IBTConference.html):


The discussions were framed by a sober recognition of the current problems of the international workers’ movement on the one hand, and an appreciation of the enormous potential for massive class struggle on the other. Our failure to make significant breakthroughs in the recent past has not shaken our commitment to maintaining a hard communist organization with an undiluted Trotskyist program. The Tasks and Perspectives document adopted by the conference opened with the following observation:

"At our fourth conference the IBT will remain what we have always been—not merely a splinter, but a splinter of a splinter. We are not appreciably closer to the realization of our objectives than we were at the last conference. Our chief accomplishment during the past few years has been to have maintained the existence of authentic Trotskyism in the world.

"While we are no closer to constituting a stable propaganda group, we have consistently demonstrated the political capacity to correctly assess the fundamental problems confronting the international workers’ movement and, given our extremely modest resources, to intervene intelligently in the politics of the international far left. Our status has improved marginally relative to our chief opponents, if only because they have, in various ways, regressed while we have more or less managed to stand fast."

So it's not something they take pride in, as you imply, but looks more like a sober analysis on the position of the IBT. This is not something I see many organisations do by the way.

[Chambered Word]

Are the Sparts even respected by any Trotskyists at all?

[AK]

Are the Sparts even respected by any Trotskyists at all?
Well, you're a Trotskyist. You tell me.

[vyborg]

Are the Sparts even respected by any Trotskyists at all?

In Italy the sparts arrived at the end of the 70s. They recruited maybe 20-25 people in 30 years. Now they are 10 at the very best, half foreigners (from US or Australia). In the 80 and first 90s they used the tactic of writing some very nasty against us and trying to isolate our young comrades in a demo, telling them any slander possible. Once they also used a trick of hiding their material in the bag of a comrade in order to have her attacked by the party bureaucrats.

The first full timer of the spart I saw was australian, he was always drunken, I proved pity for this poor mad guy.

Many times the sparts have been savagely hit by the stewards of Rifondazione because these stalinist stewards have not the trot sense of humour and spart propaganda is very rude.

Anyway, they are more amusement than a problem at least in Italy

[Chambered Word]

Well, you're a Trotskyist. You tell me.

From hearing about them, I don't think I have alot of respect for them. My point was that Devrim was making it out that the Sparts were just as 'Trotskyist' as the rest of us from other groups. I was not actually sure than any other Trotskyists give a shit about what they have to say. Neither Marx, Lenin nor Trotsky would have praised what the US has been doing in Haiti because it is imperialist to the core.


In Italy the sparts arrived at the end of the 70s. They recruited maybe 20-25 people in 30 years. Now they are 10 at the very best, half foreigners (from US or Australia). In the 80 and first 90s they used the tactic of writing some very nasty against us and trying to isolate our young comrades in a demo, telling them any slander possible. Once they also used a trick of hiding their material in the bag of a comrade in order to have her attacked by the party bureaucrats.

The first full timer of the spart I saw was australian, he was always drunken, I proved pity for this poor mad guy.

Many times the sparts have been savagely hit by the stewards of Rifondazione because these stalinist stewards have not the trot sense of humour and spart propaganda is very rude.

Anyway, they are more amusement than a problem at least in Italy

Well, I think I've heard alot about them by now. :blink: Never had the pleasure of seeing the Sparts in Perth before myself.

[Q]

From hearing about them, I don't think I have alot of respect for them. My point was that Devrim was making it out that the Sparts were just as 'Trotskyist' as the rest of us from other groups. I was not actually sure than any other Trotskyists give a shit about what they have to say. Neither Marx, Lenin nor Trotsky would have praised what the US has been doing in Haiti because it is imperialist to the core.



Well, I think I've heard alot about them by now. :blink: Never had the pleasure of seeing the Sparts in Perth before myself.

You have to understand that the Sparts and their offspring have a different methodology from many other Trotskyist groups. Most groups try to work in the wider movement or at least focus on normal workers or students.

Not so the Spart et al. They regard it as impossible for the forseeable future to attract big layers of workers towards revolutionary ideas. As such they see themselves in a stage of "primitive accumulation" of activists. They therefore focus on other revolutionary left groups (or as they call them "Ostensibly Revolutionary Groups") and try to provoke at public meetings, be kicked out, etc, in order to win over the odd member or two. John Sullivan explained it in detail (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/critiques/sullivan/pub-5sparts.html).

Now, you may not agree with what they're doing, I don't, but there is a logic to their parasitism.

By the way: A main reason why the offspring of the Sparts, IG and IBT, are so obsessed with the Sparts and continually polemicize against them is that they view the Sparts as a "Ostensibly Revolutionary Group" ripe for recruitment. It is hilarious in a very sad way.

[BOZG]

At least they admitted they were wrong and corrected it; I don't think I've ever seen a party do that before. Usually they're more willing to put in more work defending and "clarifying" than they are to actually think critically.

They seem to be going through a very strange period at the moment of self-criticism and flip flops on long held positions.

I assume much of it is due to the fact that despite current events, they remain as irrelevant and unappealing to activists as they always have. They've pretty much withdrawn from Ireland having declined from 6 or 7 members in 2003 to 1 active, 2 semi-active today at most.

[BOZG]

You have to understand that the Sparts and their offspring have a different methodology from many other Trotskyist groups. Most groups try to work in the wider movement or at least focus on normal workers or students.

Not so the Spart et al. They regard it as impossible for the forseeable future to attract big layers of workers towards revolutionary ideas. As such they see themselves in a stage of "primitive accumulation" of activists. They therefore focus on other revolutionary left groups (or as they call them "Ostensibly Revolutionary Groups") and try to provoke at public meetings, be kicked out, etc, in order to win over the odd member or two. John Sullivan explained it in detail (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/critiques/sullivan/pub-5sparts.html).

Now, you may not agree with what they're doing, I don't, but there is a logic to their parasitism.

By the way: A main reason why the offspring of the Sparts, IG and IBT, are so obsessed with the Sparts and continually polemicize against them is that they view the Sparts as a "Ostensibly Revolutionary Group" ripe for recruitment. It is hilarious in a very sad way.

Any revolutionary group goes through a period of "primitive accumulation" trying to create a propaganda group to begin with before taking an outwards turn. The problem with groups like the Sparts is their basis that they recruit people on is through sectarian attacks rather than fraternal debate. Their approach is aimed more at belittling their opponents and making them doubt their own positions and their organisation's positions rather than necessarily trying to make you believe that their positions are correct. The problem with that approach is that it's self-perpetuating and makes it very difficult to actually make a turn towards workers at any point.

[Devrim]

People like him are why more and more comrades are abandoning Trotskyism for a more modern revolutionary Marxism.


I don't think that this is at all true. Our organisations perception* is the oppositte. Trotskyism is entering a period of growth internationally.

*We have member sin 16 countries in four continents and are in no way particularly sympathetic to Trotskyism.


Don't encourage them ;)


It's not like the trots need our help to pat themselves on the back. ;)

I think it is true. It is important to understand what is going on in the left. We don't say it to encourage them, but to develop our own understanding.

Devrim

[chegitz guevara]

Don't encourage them ;)

[zimmerwald1915]

Don't encourage them ;)
It's not like the trots need our help to pat themselves on the back. ;)

[Crux]

In the hands of people like Fred, Trotskyism passed from science to religious dogma.

People like him are why more and more comrades are abandoning Trotskyism for a more modern revolutionary Marxism.
I didn't know the Sparts had that many members to abandon them to begin with. Unless, oh the thought, you were calling some other group trotskyist. ;)
Novelity is the worlds oldest idea.
I understand why people can be turned off trotskyism by secterians, like the sparts (who's secterianism is incidentally just the inverse of SWP US oppurtunistic abandonment of trotskyism by any definition), but secterians exist within every movement "modernity" can't overcome that.

[Devrim]

I think my favourite line came from a copy of the IBT's '1917' (or at least I think its the IBT that put out that paper) that I picked up at Marxism 2006 for a laught. It proudly proclaimed that "we are not a splinter. We are a splinter within a splinter!"

At least they are realistic! I think that it is important to know where you really are.

When we look at the SWP for example it is in no way a 'party'. Party has a specific meaning in Marxist terms. It doesn't just mean political organisation. Cliff at least knew this, even if the SWP today would probably have no idea what I am talking about. In 1974 when the IS transformed itself into the SWP, they saw it as the transformation from organisation to party as part of a revolutionary period. Obviously they were wrong about that, but they did understand at that point what a party meant.


So it's not something they take pride in, as you imply, but looks more like a sober analysis on the position of the IBT. This is not something I see many organisations do by the way.

I agree totally.

My favourite Spart headline goes back to 1979 with the USSR going into Afghanistan and the front page of Workers' Hammer a picture of a Russian tank and the headline 'Hail Red Army'.

Devrim

[Devrim]

This flipflop on Haiti reflects their detachment from reality.

Not supporting the Sparts in particular, but don't you think that the ability to change a mistaken position is actually an indication of 'attachment to reality', and not the other way round?

Devrim

[Devrim]

Not so the Spart et al. They regard it as impossible for the forseeable future to attract big layers of workers towards revolutionary ideas. As such they see themselves in a stage of "primitive accumulation" of activists. They therefore focus on other revolutionary left groups (or as they call them "Ostensibly Revolutionary Groups") and try to provoke at public meetings, be kicked out, etc, in order to win over the odd member or two. John Sullivan explained it in detail (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/critiques/sullivan/pub-5sparts.html).


If I remember correctly it was 'cadres' not 'activists'.

I think to a certain extent most small left groups do it. Of course nobody else decides not to intervene in class struggles to the same extent as the Sparts, but we certainly do both, and I am sure that lots of people are similar.

I was at the printers this week for example organising that we had enough of everything for Mayday. Looking at our pamphlets, the new one on the TEKEL strike is aimed directly at all workers. The one on the history of the Turkish CP is obviously aimed more specifically at people on the left.

Devrim

[blake 3:17]

Not supporting the Sparts in particular, but don't you think that the ability to change a mistaken position is actually an indication of 'attachment to reality', and not the other way round?


Fair point. But... Where were they coming from on Haiti at all? They wised up, but has that meant that they decided to participate in any of the anti-imperialist Haiti solidarity efforts? Their "correction" (which could be said to be a genuine correction of their line) says nothing about anything concrete. It's just weird posturing. It's just smarty pants self absorption.

Their abstensionism from any of the actual movements means thet their decision really doesn't matter. In my locale virtually all of the small Left groups have been getting smaller. Certain numbers of us have been trying to do something better. I've been mostly happy that they don't even appear to denounce us as reformist.

Their raison d'etre is to show why we're all wrong, and the truth is what the American SWP said 70 years ago. The last time I spoke to one was at a Palestinian solidarity rally. Their only reson to be there was to sell the papers and, if one of them were feeling especially cocky, explain why a very effective social movement was a complete sham.

Telling folks what they should have done, rather than actually doing what needs to be done, gets pretty tiresome.

[Kassad]

It's pretty easy to see why they took the position they did. The Spartacist League is usually more obsessed with insulting, demeaning and countering the Internationalist Group and the International Bolshevik Tendency than they are with actually formulating a revolutionary internationalist position. Meaning, they spend most of their time taking alternative positions to what they see as "ostensibly revolutionary organizations" than anything else. That's why they come up with such absurd stances at times.

Unfortunately, their strategy of clinging to Trotsky's "crisis of leadership" theories put forth in the Transitional Program is not working very well for them. Frankly, if they could stay unified, they could be a potentially large force on the left. However, their internationals are consistently splitting, fragmenting and forging new internationals that it's hard to keep track of them, let alone get anything done on their end.

[Devrim]

Fair point. But... Where were they coming from on Haiti at all?

As I said I don't support or defend them at all. I just think that the ability to change positions when you are wrong is in no way to do with 'their detachment from reality'.

Devrim

[Victory Of The People!]

I would just like to address a few things:

1. It is true that a revolutionary organization can make a mistake and then correct that mistake. If that was all that transpired then there would be nothing else to say. HOWEVER, the Spartacist League viciously attacked other organizations that called for the withdrawal of US/UN troops out of Haiti. They showed up at numerous events in New York City and blasted other Communist organizations for calling for the withdrawal. I personally witnessed a Spartacist "interruption" at another organization's meeting where the Spartacists equated a withdrawal with "letting the Haitians starve to death," claimed there was "no working class in Haiti," and hurled insults at those who claimed otherwise. If the Spartacist League did not act in such a manner then their change of position would be more accepted, but don't blast other Communists in your newspaper for months on end and then change your position and expect no one to call you out on it.

2. While i agree that most, if not all of the Fourth Internationalists (or those calling for a renewal of it) are hairsplitters and more sectarian than most, on this issue they are completely right. There is no room for compromise when it comes to the support of Imperialism. The Spartacist League is not a new organization of young kids; they have been around for decades and their cadres are (if not anything else) educated in Communist theory. Such a mistake can not be chalked up to inexperience or ignorance, only OPPORTUNISM.

[Devrim]

1. It is true that a revolutionary organization can make a mistake and then correct that mistake. If that was all that transpired then there would be nothing else to say. HOWEVER, the Spartacist League viciously attacked other organizations that called for the withdrawal of US/UN troops out of Haiti. They showed up at numerous events in New York City and blasted other Communist organizations for calling for the withdrawal. I personally witnessed a Spartacist "interruption" at another organization's meeting where the Spartacists equated a withdrawal with "letting the Haitians starve to death," claimed there was "no working class in Haiti," and hurled insults at those who claimed otherwise. If the Spartacist League did not act in such a manner then their change of position would be more accepted, but don't blast other Communists in your newspaper for months on end and then change your position and expect no one to call you out on it.

So what you seem to be saying is that they acted like the Sparticist League always does. They changed their policy on one issue, not there whole mode of operation.

Devrim