Why does everyone call spartacists loonies?

[Black Sheep]

IF i remember correctly from Luxemburg's reform or revolution, the sparcacists were the revolutionary split of SPD, when it became a reformist cesspool.

So why the 'batshit crazy' accusations?
Give me some info please, comrades.Historical, today's, general thesies, examples of insanity, etc

[Who?]

I assume that when people talk about the nuttiness of the Sparticist League they are referring to the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Communist_League_(Fourth_Internation alist)). A rather active Trotskyist organization known for their sectarian attacks. There is generally a fair amount of sourness on the left in regard to the Sparticists, probably because you seldom find a leftist who's organization hasn't been attacked by them. That, and some of their more unorthodox positions, such as their support for NAMBLA.

[Widerstand]

Yeah, the Spartacis League is a contemporary "Troskyist" organization. They exist in Germany too (they sell the Worker's Vanguard here).

I talked with one member of the "Spartacist Youth" once, who was like 40 and trying to sell me her newspaper. They actually consider China a socialist state (albeit degenerated).

[Palingenisis]

I assume that when people talk about the nuttiness of the Sparticist League they are referring to the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Communist_League_%28Fourth_Internati onalist%29). A rather active Trotskyist organization known for their sectarian attacks. There is generally a fair amount of sourness on the left in regard to the Sparticists, probably because you seldom find a leftist who's organization hasn't been attacked by them. That and some of their more unorthodox positions, such as their support for NAMBLA.

I have a sort of respect for them and than they go and spoil it with evil filth like I have high lighted.

[graymouser]

The Spartacist League is not the Spartakusbund, Luxemburg's group. The SL is the leading section of the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist), and is an allegedly "orthodox" split from the Socialist Workers Party in 1963. The SL has a habit of declaring other Trotskyist groups to be "ostensibly revolutionary organizations" and their public actions (and the articles in their press) frequently consist of angry declamations of other tendencies. They are infamous for taking up "angular" slogans that sharply differentiate them from other groups. The high point of this was probably "Hail Red Army in Afghanistan!" during the 1979 Soviet intervention there.

Spartacists have always been an unbalanced tendency, and have been known for their bizarre tactics. Interventions at public meetings are almost universally denunciations of other groups, rather than projecting any kind of positive politics. They differentiated themselves in the 1980s by taking up an extreme version of Soviet defencism, supporting the crushing of the Polish Solidarnosc and declaring that any tendency refusing to do so was revisionist. These days they take up a very aggressive version of support for the deformed workers states, and include China in that list.

And yes, the Sparts have gotten their share of controversy because they are against age-of-consent laws, including support for NAMBLA. It's more or less a symptom of the overall crazy nature of the demands that they bring up, which mostly serve as a barrier between them and other groups. Their paper used to be a pretty significant source of left gossip, but these days it's mostly on erratic jags like their recent position on Haiti, which actually supported the US intervention until they explicitly reversed course on the question.

[devoration1]

I've read (on here I think) they used to recruit young, impressionable and attractive women for the sole purpose of using them to recruit large numbers of men into the organization?

[Red Commissar]

I've read (on here I think) they used to recruit young, impressionable and attractive women for the sole purpose of using them to recruit large numbers of men into the organization?

"Horizontal Recruitment" is a common charge leveled against them by some, more so in the past though. I can't say if it still applies today because I haven't really seen their group personally.

[Clark]

They wanted to recruit me, wowz. I was liek: I'm in teh CWI already!

And she was like: But they're reactionary, like their position on cops, which is the opposite of the position Lenin and Trotsky had during blablablabla.....

So I gave her a fake phone number just to be done with her. (Yeah, I can't just tell an old woman to GTFO, even less on a crowded protest dominated by stalinists)

[graymouser]

They wanted to recruit me, wowz. I was liek: I'm in teh CWI already!
Yeah, the Sparts have made recruiting out of other tendencies a particular favorite; they base the idea loosely on the fact that the Trotskyists tried to win members of the Communist Parties over during the late 20s and early 30s, as those parties were entering the final stage of Stalinization. Needless to say that hasn't won them any friends, considering they come off like lunatics.

(As a side note: the Sparts did have some slightly off but more "normal" members during the 70s, but their high-pressure internal life and bizarre style of interventions have driven most everyone off except the die-hards, who tend to be more unbalanced. This has been a vicious cycle where the leadership realizes the rank-and-file are mostly crazy but can't really fix the problem as their bureaucratic style is partly to blame in the first place. And yes, the crap with horizontal recruitment was real and did contribute to the current sorry state of Spartacism.)


And she was like: But they're reactionary, like their position on cops, which is the opposite of the position Lenin and Trotsky had during blablablabla.....
The CWI's stance on cops is pretty backward, though: they do consider police to be a legit part of the workers' movement. Not that this means you should become a Spart or anything, but just because they say something doesn't mean it's not true.

[9]

Wow, I'm not a fan of the Sparts at all, but this thread is pretty pathetic.

At least there's a couple highlights:


evil filth

lol


impressionable and attractive women

:rolleyes:

[graymouser]

Wow, I'm not a fan of the Sparts at all, but this thread is pretty pathetic.
Name one claim in this thread that isn't true.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Wow nice contribution comrade 9, maybe you'd like to defend the Sparts' position on pedos and NAMBLA instead of just "lol"?

[Cencus]

There were a few Spartacists posting on here a few years back, I think they are all banned now. The thread that sticks in my mind was called "XXXX XXXXX the new Rosa Parks" or some such. XXXX XXXXX was a middle aged bloke who was charged in the U.S. with taking indecent photographs of primary school kids, who's name I've forgotten.

The arguement was that by fighting these charges this bloke was standing up for our freedom against the evils of the state, and that this was the new battleground that the civil rights movement should be massing for.

Never mind the insult by linking a paedophile's attempts to escape justice with Rosa Parks struggle for basic human rights, thats bad enough in itself, but how the hell are you going sell the idea of a socialist revolution to the folks if you advocate allowing child abuse. People don't like peodophiles full stop. Can you imagine the reaction at the post revolutionary meeting. "Brothers & Sisters after the great victory for our class we are now going to allow people to fuck your kids." People would get ripped apart if that idea was put forward.

Loonies? Dam right they are.

[9]

Wow nice contribution comrade 9, maybe you'd like to defend the Sparts' position on pedos and NAMBLA instead of just "lol"?

Oh yes, I'm dyng to; I'm sure if I even attempted to correct the repeated mischaracterization in this thread of their position on NAMBLA - which I completely disagree with, but it isn't what people are claiming it is - I'd be banned in about 0.3 seconds.
So yeah, I'm gonna have to pass. SKIN THE PEDOZ ALIVE!!!!!!1 etc. etc.

[electro_fan]

i'm really not keen on the spartacists having seen them "in action" at one of our meetings where the guy who was speaking had given a long speech about the situation in a country, described the most horrific things which had taken place towards workers, including some of his friends, only for the sparts to get up and start accusing him personally and the CWI of being fascist, promoting genocide, etc, a fairly disgusting accusation given his background

theyre well known for doing this though, more loopy than harmful or anything :D although their position on paedophilia is just fucking sick

[bailey_187]

a couple marxisms (the SWP event) ago i was walking around the stalls of all the left sects talking to them, getting free newspapers and shit. i went to the spart table and they were rude, didnt want to talk to me and gave me no free stuff :mad: (and definatly no chance of horizontal recruiting, not that i wouldve, they were ugly IIRC)

they also had their notorious sign "Defend deformed workers states of china, korea etc"

i was also at some event last year organised by the 5th international guys. it was at the time when some workers had occupied a factory, which was inthe news abit, and someone said about them being the vanguard of the working class. the spart then told us that they were not, but him and his group was the vanguard of the working class :lol:

[Lucretia]

Wow nice contribution comrade 9, maybe you'd like to defend the Sparts' position on pedos and NAMBLA instead of just "lol"?

What do you think the Sparts' position on the age of consent issue is? My understanding is that the Sparts call for replacing the age of consent with laws that use some other basis for determining effective consent. That seems reasonable to me, and far from the monstrous position it's being described as here. If I'm not mistaken, it's also the line of a few other socialist/communist organizations. Correct me if I am wrong on either of these issues. As for nambla, isn't that a Jon Stewart joke?

Oh, and one last thing. The Sparts should probably avoid putting exclamation points at the end of every single headline in their Workers Vanguard publication. It does make the group look fanatical and silly.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

someone said about them being the vanguard of the working class. the spart then told us that they were not, but him and his group was the vanguard of the working class :lol:
Biggest facepalm evar

[theAnarch]

just a side note the Sparts left the SWP over there support for Malcome X.

[graymouser]

just a side note the Sparts left the SWP over there support for Malcome X.
That's actually not true at all.

Jim Robertson was a member of a small group (mostly NYC based) of youth who broke from the Socialist Youth League, the youth wing of Max Shachtman's Independent Socialist League, when Shachtman went into the Socialist Party. They became orthodox Trotskyists and fused with the SWP in 1960, but almost immediately came into conflict with Joseph Hansen (who had been one of Trotsky's secretaries in Mexico) and the SWP leadership over the question of Cuba.

Robertson was initially part of the Revolutionary Tendency that oriented toward Gerry Healy, who was the leader of the Socialist Labour League in Britain. Healy's line was that capitalism was not overthrown in Cuba, while Hansen (representing the SWP leadership) argued that Cuba was a workers' state - and a relatively healthy one. Robertson and his wing of the RT developed the line that Cuba was a deformed workers' state, and split from the SWP in 1963. The rest of the RT - led by Tim Wohlforth and Shane Mage - stayed with Healy's line, and didn't split until 1964. (This all played into the complex fallout of the 1953 split in the Fourth International.)

The split difference was 100% on Cuba, but the Spartacist group (later Spartacist League) quickly took up a number of positions opposite to the SWP. The SWP had a lengthy political debate on African-American liberation, between George Breitman who took a position favoring Black Nationalist forces and brought the party close to Malcolm X during Malcolm's last year*, and Dick Fraser whose position of "Revolutionary Integrationism" was staunchly anti-nationalist. Fraser, with his wife Clara, broke with the SWP in 1966 and took the entire Seattle branch with them. They formed a small party, the Freedom Socialist Party, which immediately split when Dick and Clara got divorced. The Sparts took up Fraser's position of Revolutionary Integrationism, which calls for "Black Liberation through Socialist Revolution."

Politically this contrarianism tends to define the Sparts. When most of the US left took up feminism in the '70s, the Sparts became hardline anti-feminists. They took up a "two socialist states" position in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the matching position on Northern Ireland - ironically these are almost the same positions as the British Militant tendency, predecessor of the CWI and IMT. They are anti-environmentalist, pro-porn (Nina Hartley, a famous porn actress, is or at least was a supporter), pro-smoking, they take up their infamous position on age of consent laws and defense of NAMBLA, even their position on Solidarnosc - it's all to be the opposite of whatever is popular in the left at the moment. Lately it's manifested in a severe hatred of third-worldism, such as the claim that there is no working class in Bolivia or Haiti that could be a revolutionary force. But it can't be taken too seriously, their politics are less about solid principle and more about taking the opposite line to whatever's trendy in the left.

* The Spartacists were actually out of the SWP in 1963, while it didn't really start working with Malcolm until 1964.

[Tifosi]

they also had their notorious sign "Defend deformed workers states of china, korea etc"

This one? Or is there another beauty I've missed?:lol:

http://www.indymedia.ie/cache/imagecache/local/attachments/migration/img_up/up_3/460_0___30_0_0_0_0_0_37123_1.jpg

[28350]

Their politics aren't too terrible imo, but they just spend all their time attacking other leftists.

[electro_fan]

if you examine the reasons why they do this (it's not because they're trying to be arseholes, it's part of a political strategy) then i'm afraid their politics are "terrible"

[Fabrizio]

I've read (on here I think) they used to recruit young, impressionable and attractive women for the sole purpose of using them to recruit large numbers of men into the organization?

In my experience many groups do that.

I read a guerilla once, who died for his cause and was no "vacilating petit bourgeois", say that Permanent Revolution is a theory best explained lying down.

[Kassad]

9 doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. I've had discussions, debates and physical altercations with members and supporters of the Spartacist League and their opposition to age of consent laws is quite apparent. They believe, and this is from what they have said to me, that age of consent laws are a part of a system of "bourgeois family values." Meaning, the laws come from the state's suppression of the working class because it attempts to tell people how to live. I'll lay it out very clearly: the Spartacist League and its fractures and splits oppose age of consent laws, which means they are totally fine with having intercourse with pre-sexual humans... if you have their consent. So basically, all I have to do is convince a six year old girl that it will make her feel good and I've got her consent. I don't know about you, but I think that's pretty sick. Imagining daughters of my friends and family being abused and traumatized by such an event is something I don't even want to think about.

I do want to take a second to focus on splits and fractures from the Spartacist League. The two largest splits are the International Bolshevik Tendency, which split in the late 80's over assorted issues and the attacks on their current leader, Bill Logan, and the Internationalist Group (League for the Fourth International). Both groups (the IBT to a much lesser extent) uphold Trotsky's "crisis of leadership" perspective that comes from the Transitional Program. Basically, they all believe that the working class has been revolutionary for a very long time, meaning that it could lead a revolution. All class conscious workers are already members of socialist organizations, yet the revolution hasn't come, so it must be due to a lack of leadership coming from these groups. Because these splits continue the sectarian antics of the Spartacist League, they also do it to each other, which makes their craziness even more easy to see. James Robertson, the leader of the Spartacist League who is a rabid alcoholic, is growing old and delusional. The IBT came out and basically showed that Robertson basically lives a privileged lifestyle on the backs of members, as shown by the fact that he recently had a summer home built and his apartment had a hot tub installed. Issues like the Bill Logan show trial show how crazy some members of the organization are.

It's not just their sectarian attacks. It is everything about them. They're a relic at this point, as their membership is likely somewhere around 100 people in the United States and they don't organize anywhere but large cities. Their hostility keeps them from really gaining any members and I've never seen someone leave an organization and join the Spartacists. Other crazy things include the fact that Spartacist League members cannot marry outside the party and they require consent of their leaders to have children, who often times rule that the party comes first, so the members aren't allowed to have children.

A long-time PSL member in Chicago was offered a copy of Workers Vanguard at a demonstration once. His response is the same way I view it: "Now now, not ever."

[9]

9 doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. I've had discussions, debates and physical altercations with members and supporters of the Spartacist League and their opposition to age of consent laws is quite apparent. They believe, and this is from what they have said to me, that age of consent laws are a part of a system of "bourgeois family values." Meaning, the laws come from the state's suppression of the working class because it attempts to tell people how to live. I'll lay it out very clearly: the Spartacist League and its fractures and splits oppose age of consent laws, which means they are totally fine with having intercourse with pre-sexual humans... if you have their consent.
No, this isn't what it means.

[Kassad]

No, this isn't what it means.

Solid argument. You blew me away.

[9]

Solid argument. You blew me away.

It's hard to argue with slander. It's like saying that because x is opposed to laws criminalizing meth, heroin, and crack use, that x must support meth, heroin, and crack use. But of course anyone who isn't a total moron or intellectually dishonest can see on their own that this isn't the case and furthermore that it's slander, so there's hardly any point in constructing some elaborate argument against it. And then there's the fact that I'm not terribly interested in getting banned.

[bcbm]

white, college student spart to white, college student iso member:
"what do you know about black oppression?!"

[Lucretia]

I'll lay it out very clearly: the Spartacist League and its fractures and splits oppose age of consent laws, which means they are totally fine with having intercourse with pre-sexual humans... if you have their consent. So basically, all I have to do is convince a six year old girl that it will make her feel good and I've got her consent. I don't know about you, but I think that's pretty sick. Imagining daughters of my friends and family being abused and traumatized by such an event is something I don't even want to think about.

The Sparts support replacing age of consent laws with a law defining informed consent as "the ability to say the word yes"? I thought their position was a little more nuanced than this.

[DaringMehring]

Sparts theory that says they must target other ORGs (ostensibly revolutionary groups, ie, other socialist groups) is totally wrong and anti-Marxist.

As a result, they have no base in the working class.

Therefore, they're irrelevant, except as a flea on the back of real socialists.

[Widerstand]

As a result, they have no base in the working class.

I've never met a Spart that wasn't working class.

[graymouser]

I do want to take a second to focus on splits and fractures from the Spartacist League. The two largest splits are the International Bolshevik Tendency, which split in the late 80's over assorted issues and the attacks on their current leader, Bill Logan, and the Internationalist Group (League for the Fourth International). Both groups (the IBT to a much lesser extent) uphold Trotsky's "crisis of leadership" perspective that comes from the Transitional Program. Basically, they all believe that the working class has been revolutionary for a very long time, meaning that it could lead a revolution. All class conscious workers are already members of socialist organizations, yet the revolution hasn't come, so it must be due to a lack of leadership coming from these groups. Because these splits continue the sectarian antics of the Spartacist League, they also do it to each other, which makes their craziness even more easy to see. James Robertson, the leader of the Spartacist League who is a rabid alcoholic, is growing old and delusional. The IBT came out and basically showed that Robertson basically lives a privileged lifestyle on the backs of members, as shown by the fact that he recently had a summer home built and his apartment had a hot tub installed. Issues like the Bill Logan show trial show how crazy some members of the organization are.
Now, I think the above is somewhat inaccurate, both in terms of its assessment of Trotsky's concept of the crisis of leadership and in terms of the outlook of the Sparts. Trotsky didn't premise the Transitional Program on the idea that all class-conscious workers were members of socialist organizations, but that the objective conditions for socialist revolution (the advanced state of capitalism and immiseration of the working class) existed, but the subjective factor (the consistent revolutionary party with a revolutionary program) was missing. This meant that what was needed was mainly the construction of a revolutionary party and that this party needed a program that could bridge the reformist consciousness of the workers to the socialist tasks that were required. It did mean a policy of principled opposition to the social democrats and Stalinists but not in the pathological way the Spartacists have made it out to be.

For the Sparts, this has meant that they have to destroy the "ostensibly revolutionary organizations" that stand in their way politically. This will clear the way for the type of regroupment that they want. But this is in no way related to Trotsky's perspective, which looked at winning the workers to a positive program. Such a perspective is out of the minds of the Sparts, who were well described by the IBT as a "political bandit cult." (As for the IBT, they never tackled the madness that was inherent in Spartacism and it's pretty much claimed them - that is, they've slowly moved from a group that was merely ultraleft to one that is organizationally sick in the Spartacist sense. Logan is a big part of that.)

[Kassad]

Yeah, I understand the misunderstanding, but I wasn't trying to say Trotsky stated that explicity and believed that it is necessary to siphon members away from ostensibly revolutionary organizations. That is just how the Spartacists have interpreted it.

The IBT in the United States consists of something like, five people. They aren't anything like the Spartacists here, yet I hear they're just as bad in Europe. What do you think is the difference there?

[Palingenisis]

I've never met a Spart that wasn't working class.

I honestly have a certain respect for them...I respect them more than any other Trotskyite group...If only they would drop the whole sick kiddie fiddling shite.

[blake 3:17]

They do their best to take radical positions where they don't actually have to do anything. They'd on occasion mount information pickets at meetings we'd organized, usually either for being class collaborationist or including social democrats or labour bureaucrats on a panel.

I think they've stopped, but they were sometimes coming to BDS and Israeli Apartheid Week events to give solidarity for pro-Palestinian activists but denouncing us for class collaboration and reliance on the bourgeois state.

This crazy assbutt, who'd done nothing ever, got up at a fairly controversial meeting on Canada/Quebec and denounced Jean-Claude Parrot as a sell out labour bureaucrat. He's only about the most radical union leader we've seen in 30 years...

From wikipedia:

Jean-Claude Parrot (born c. 1937) was National President (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/President) of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Canadian_Union_of_Postal_Workers) for fifteen years and its chief negotiator (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Negotiator) for eighteen.
Early in his career, CUPW had reached a low point with Canadians when, at the outset of a 42-day postal strike (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Strike_action), Parrot's presidential predecessor Joe Davidson responded to a reporter's hypothetical question (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Hypothetical_question) by uttering "to hell with the public."
Capitalizing on the lack of support for the postal worker union (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Trade_union), the federal government (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Federal_government) moved quickly in 1978 (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/1978) to crush the workers, imposing back-to-work legislation (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Legislation). In defiance, postal workers remained on strike for seven days after the legislation took effect.

.C. Parrot was eventually jailed (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Jail) for two months in 1980 for not telling postal workers to return to work.

He led postal workers to many victories such as the conversion of the post office (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Post_office) into a Crown Corporation (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Crown_Corporation), breakthroughs in collective bargaining (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Collective_bargaining) such as paid maternity leave (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Maternity_leave), and CUPW's 1989 (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/1989) victory in a winner-take-all certification vote (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Vote) that doubled the size of the union.


CUPW was also the first Canadian union to fight for same sex partners benefits.

So they're crazy and annoying.

[graymouser]

Yeah, I understand the misunderstanding, but I wasn't trying to say Trotsky stated that explicity and believed that it is necessary to siphon members away from ostensibly revolutionary organizations. That is just how the Spartacists have interpreted it.
Cool, I just felt the clarification was needed.


The IBT in the United States consists of something like, five people. They aren't anything like the Spartacists here, yet I hear they're just as bad in Europe. What do you think is the difference there?
The IBT's problem is that they recruited too many ex-Sparts. There were some decent people in it but over the years they've mostly been forced out by the more pathological ones (their main cadre in New York, pretty well known as being a nice and reasonable guy, left a couple of years ago). In Britain and elsewhere their recruitment options were people who'd signed on to one of the Spart satellite groups, which were notorious for their distorted internal life.

Most of the IBT now is in Canada, the UK and New Zealand - and together I'd be surprised if they were more than 30 people. When you have multiple self-perceived "leaders" in a group that size, the internal dynamics can go to hell even with a better political basis than Spartacism.

[blake 3:17]

I've had very pleasant experiences with folks from the BT here. A few years ago there was an impromptu karaoke showdown between some BTers and us FIers. They participate in some united front work and often present sectarian arguments at meetings but aren't disruptive.

I don't know this for sure, but I believe the Sparts move their members around a bit randomly. Folks will be around and then disappear and then reappear. I've been friendly with a couple for years but if I seem them at a rally or elsewhere, there's no "Hello" type of Sane Communication, but instead some rambling about the evils of Solidarnosc or blah blah blah.

And if one wants proof of Spart kookiness, forget the NAMBLA stuff, try to follow their Statement of the International Executive Committee of the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist)Repudiating Our Position on Haiti Earthquake http://www.icl-fi.org/english/leaflets/rehaiti.html

[Kassad]

Most of the IBT now is in Canada, the UK and New Zealand - and together I'd be surprised if they were more than 30 people. When you have multiple self-perceived "leaders" in a group that size, the internal dynamics can go to hell even with a better political basis than Spartacism.

Yeah, there's a group called Revolutionary Regroupment (http://www.regroupment.org/) that split from the IBT a little while back. I think it might be just one person and a couple others who have joined afterwards, but it's just a testament to how divisive the Spartacists and all of their fractions are.

In truth, if all of them were united behind one banner (SL, IG, IBT, etc.), they'd be quite a powerful force on the left. However, that's not going to happen any time soon, as I only see more fragmentation in the future.

[graymouser]

I've had very pleasant experiences with folks from the BT here. A few years ago there was an impromptu karaoke showdown between some BTers and us FIers. They participate in some united front work and often present sectarian arguments at meetings but aren't disruptive.
From what I've heard the worst are the NZ group, who are so ossified that they pretty much prevent new blood from coming into the group.


I don't know this for sure, but I believe the Sparts move their members around a bit randomly. Folks will be around and then disappear and then reappear. I've been friendly with a couple for years but if I seem them at a rally or elsewhere, there's no "Hello" type of Sane Communication, but instead some rambling about the evils of Solidarnosc or blah blah blah.
I'm given to understand that this is the case (re: moving members about). Happens in the US SWP quite a bit as well.


And if one wants proof of Spart kookiness, forget the NAMBLA stuff, try to follow their Statement of the International Executive Committee of the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist)Repudiating Our Position on Haiti Earthquake http://www.icl-fi.org/english/leaflets/rehaiti.html
Yeah, that. The IG fucking skewered the SL for their Haiti position.

To understand why it's important, you have to realize that the Spartacists have managed to develop something of a "first-worldism" about proletarian revolution. This is a relatively recent innovation, after the IG split, where the Sparts have begun to discount the possibility of revolution in third world countries by dismissing the working class of those countries. There have been three major examples in the last several years: in Bolivia during the 2003 and 2005 riots; in Oaxaca during the events of 2006 and 2007; and in Haiti during last year's earthquake. In each case the Sparts have essentially claimed that there is no working class to speak of in those countries and attacked anyone calling for the proletarian revolution there.

So, because they followed this logic to its natural conclusion, they actually supported the US military presence in Haiti - a position that the IG correctly identified as social-patriotism and a deviation from anti-imperialism. The SL initially dug in their heels, as they are prone to do, until it got so embarrassing to them that they had to repudiate the position publicly. But they still claim that Haitian immigrant workers in the US and elsewhere are the only Haitian proletariat worth discussing.

[gorillafuck]

It's hard to argue with slander. It's like saying that because x is opposed to laws criminalizing meth, heroin, and crack use, that x must support meth, heroin, and crack use. But of course anyone who isn't a total moron or intellectually dishonest can see on their own that this isn't the case and furthermore that it's slander, so there's hardly any point in constructing some elaborate argument against it. And then there's the fact that I'm not terribly interested in getting banned.
I don't really know about the sparts view on age of consent (I don't care about the sparts) but if you disagree with his interpretation can you tell us what their actual view is?

[blake 3:17]

From what I've heard the worst are the NZ group, who are so ossified that they pretty much prevent new blood from coming into the group.


The NZ group sounds a little strange, but I've mostly heard about them via the Sparts. Does anyone actually care? As I've said the BTers here are generally fairly pleasant sectarians who do good work around Mumia Abu Jamal and participate in demonstrations in good faith.


I'm given to understand that this is the case (re: moving members about). Happens in the US SWP quite a bit as well.

Moving people around for no good reason just seems cultish and weird.


There have been three major examples in the last several years: in Bolivia during the 2003 and 2005 riots; in Oaxaca during the events of 2006 and 2007; and in Haiti during last year's earthquake. In each case the Sparts have essentially claimed that there is no working class to speak of in those countries and attacked anyone calling for the proletarian revolution there.

What do they demand? Or is their approach abstentionist?

[The Red Next Door]

During a demostration October on the anniversary of the Afghan war, there was a spart member who was new to the socialist movement. He was going around learning about other socialists organizations, he came to our booth and was asking questions about our organization. Then this annoying witch; who i had dubbed "the spartawitch". Came up and started fucking with us, saying oh we are bad bad bad blah blah blah blah, her and kassad was just going at it, with the coordinator of the midwest tugging on his shirt, telling him to stop. They are a bunch of annoying motherfuckers.

[9]

can you tell us what their actual view is?

The Sparts do have a website with an operable search function.
I assume that if people can't be bothered taking two seconds to find the statements about it on their own, they're probably not particularly interested anyway.

(^I can't figure out why this post sounds *****y, btw, but its actually not how I'm intending it)