Spartacists / International Communist League

[spartafc]

has anyone come across this group before? Known centrally as the 'International Communist League' they have some groups in various places. In the U.K they're called the spartacist league. I think they're called the same thing in America.

If anyone does know this group - does any thoughts on them? Or personal experiences of them? Quite curious.

[Solidarnosc]

You mean you've never come across the Sparts?

Oh my. You might want to sit down.

The Sparts are a split from the American SWP (no relation to the British one), they were kicked out in the mid 1970's for opposing what they saw as "Pabloite liquidation" of the Forth International and the centrist degeneration of the 4I. They constituted themselves as the Revolutionary Tendency initially, and solidarised with Gerry Healy and the Socialist Labour League in the UK, initially supporting what formed as the International Ctte of the 4th International, but dropped their support for Healy when they realised what an "oppertunist", to put it lightly, he was. It was the only sensible thing they've ever done.

Eventually, when they realised that they wern't ever going to get back into the SWP/US, they formed the Spartacist League/US and went on the hunt for fellow travellers, eventually forming the international Spartacist tendency (iSt). They then sent their American comrades to cities across the world, sort of like socialist mormons, to build up sections, eventually forming the ICL(4I), the Sparts as we know and love them today.

That's the Spart history in a nutshell. Politically, they're fucking bonkers. Seriously. A German comrade in Arbeitermacht (sp? - German section of L5I) was telling me about how they raised the demand that North Korea should have the right to nuclear weapons. Not so much a crime in and of itself (although I'm not too sure if I'd agree with it), but it was on an anti-fascist demonstration.

A lot of my personal experiences of them stem back to my time in the British SWP, and having to steward meetings at their Marxism summer school. You knew what meetings they always went to - Cuba, China, Che Guevara, the IS tradition... they would come, they would hand in fake speaker slips (i.e. say they were from the SWP and say they were going to talk about something totally different) and they would rant and rave. One particular Spartacist "intervention" sticks in my mind - Marxism 2003, the meeting on Che Guevara. Mike Gonzales was doing the lead-off, and they invaded the stage, chanting and waving placards, They were ejected (SWP policy is to bar Sparts from their events). Next day was the meeting on Cuba, with one of their lesser-known full timers doing the lead off. Same people - but they thought, that by dying their hair, no-one would notice them.

This all stems from their attitude to other left wing groups. They consider the IST (big capitals) and the CWI "reformist" while groups like Workers Power and the L5I, wot I am in now, are "centrist". I'm sure other users can fill you in as to why this is, as at 2.30am, these kinda things escape me.

I sometimes read their press, because when you edit out the Trotskyist evangelicalism, they can have some interesting things to say, especially about the US socialist and labour movements.

They also hold, through Workers Hammer, the best headline in a left wing newspaper, ever, for "There Ain't Anything Wrong With A Little Bit Of Bump & Grind: Defend R Kelly" about the underage sex charges against R Kelly, Absolute classic!

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 07:30 PM
The Sparts are a split from the American SWP (no relation to the British one), they were kicked out in the mid 1970's for opposing what they saw as "Pabloite liquidation" of the Forth International and the centrist degeneration of the 4I.
Early 60s. The faction fight centered on the Cuban Revolution.

The group's characterized by sectarian refusal to participate in any mass struggle, under one excuse or another.

Wikipedia is accurate in its overall picture of this subject, with a few errors in details. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Communist_League_%28Fourth_Internati onalist%29)

[spartafc]

You mean you've never come across the Sparts?

I have to some extent, but was wondering if others had.

[spartafc]

One particular Spartacist "intervention" sticks in my mind - Marxism 2003, the meeting on Che Guevara. Mike Gonzales was doing the lead-off, and they invaded the stage, chanting and waving placards, They were ejected (SWP policy is to bar Sparts from their events). Next day was the meeting on Cuba, with one of their lesser-known full timers doing the lead off. Same people - but they thought, that by dying their hair, no-one would notice them.


I was at that meeting. Though I thought that it was members of the Revolutionary Communist Group from the Cuban Solidarity campaign that were disrupting the meeting - they do have a very pro-Cuba line. I could be wrong

[Solidarnosc]

I posted that at 1,30am so do forgive me for factual innacuracies.

On the split, the info I have came from an IBT member. Though I do swear the Sparts did make a similar intervention during Marxism 2003.

My memory is totally fucked!

[Severian]

I have no idea about that specifically, of course, but the Sparts have been known to disrupt other groups' meetings, certainly.

[Solidarnosc]

An encounter with the Sparts is always a pleasure, never a chore ;)

They have disrupted meetings in the past, but certainly at this year's Marxism they were decidedly chilled out. They got up, made their contribution in a calm and controlled manner, and finished on time.

Which, I must admit, makes Marxism slightly less interesting.

[comradesteele]

are these the same sparticists that took over berlin in the 1920s (i think)

[Solidarnosc]

No - they just borrowed the name.

[spartafc]

They seem like a fairly degenerated grouping - with a group-mentality thing that seems more then a little scary. I do like talking to members of the organisation - it's always interesting and amusing.

[Solidarnosc]

Ask to see their CIA gun :P It ALWAYS gets them riled, without fail.

[JC1]

Do any comrade in the US now if there efforts to "proselytize" the black community has gone to any avail.

[spartafc]

Ask to see their CIA gun tongue.gif It ALWAYS gets them riled, without fail.

either that or mention Comrade M.Jackson


:wacko: :P

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 05:00 PM
Do any comrade in the US now if there efforts to "proselytize" the black community has gone to any avail.
Not specially. Most of their stuff claiming to have led massive anti-KKK rallies is misleading at best. The rallies occurred, by they were not in fact Spart-led.

[jabra nicola]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 01:30 AM
This all stems from their attitude to other left wing groups. They consider the IST (big capitals) and the CWI "reformist" while groups like Workers Power and the L5I, wot I am in now, are "centrist".
If they consider Workers Power centrist then you must admit they get some things right.

Back in the days of old they were also a major influence on the development of Workers Power. I mean lets be honest here WP are generally good, decent and industrious people but they have no ideas. So where did their ideas come from?

Well a lot of them were borrowed from the Sparts if truth be known. Back in 76-78 the Sparts were not as easily recognisable as the raving loons they are now (the MIM of the Trotskyoid world) and had a huge influence on the clique that became Workers Power.

[Solidarnosc]

jabra: The Sparts were never an influence on Workers Power. To say so shows great ignorance of WP's and the Spart's history.

WP is, in fact, a split of the British SWP. After it was booted from what was then the IS, in 74, it fused with Workers Fight (now the Alliance for Worker's Liberty) to form the ICL (no relation to the Sparts - can you imagine the AWL and the Sparts being in the same party?). It then democratically defused soon after. Soon after it went it alone.

Despite my factual error about the reason why the RT split from the American SWP in my first post in this thread, the RT (forerunner to the Sparts) did solidarise with Gerry Healy and the SLL. Healy hated all other socialist groups - including WP - with a vicious passion.

The Sparts to try to intervene in WP and REVOLUTION events, but this again stems from their attitude to other left groups, and their characterisation (sp?) of WP as 'centrist'.

As for the lack of ideas - comrade, we follow in the tradition of Trotsky and the revolutionary era of the 4th Intl. In fact, we have an entire programme which spells out our ideas - go to the link in my signature ans see for yourself.

As for WP being a 'clique' - comrade, I do not do cliques. Never have done, never will do, and I can tell you - WP is far from a clique.

[jabra nicola]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 01:49 AM
jabra: The Sparts were never an influence on Workers Power. To say so shows great ignorance of WP's and the Spart's history.

WP is, in fact, a split of the British SWP. After it was booted from what was then the IS, in 74, it fused with Workers Fight (now the Alliance for Worker's Liberty) to form the ICL (no relation to the Sparts - can you imagine the AWL and the Sparts being in the same party?). It then democratically defused soon after. Soon after it went it alone.

The Sparts to try to intervene in WP and REVOLUTION events, but this again stems from their attitude to other left groups, and their characterisation (sp?) of WP as 'centrist'.

As for the lack of ideas - comrade, we follow in the tradition of Trotsky and the revolutionary era of the 4th Intl. In fact, we have an entire programme which spells out our ideas - go to the link in my signature ans see for yourself.

As for WP being a 'clique' - comrade, I do not do cliques. Never have done, never will do, and I can tell you - WP is far from a clique.
No need to tell me the prehistory of Workers Power I remember events well enough.

And yes Workers Power did begin as a clique some connections between leading WPers ging back to their schooldays you know. And then within ISthey continued to act a clique but we are discussing origins here comrade not what WP is now.

Make no mistake IS were wrong in booting the Left Faction out and some opposed it at the time. But it cannot be denied that the Left Faction were in unsanctioned correspondence with the Matgamnaites which alone would have provided legitimate reason for expulsion.

And like it or not WP were influenced by the Sparts back in the late 1970s. By saying influenced I do not mean that they were influenced to adopt the positions of the Sparts but that the Sparts influenced them to take up a study of Trotskyism in a serious manner. And on some questions the Sparts very much did influence them more directly as with the conception that WP developed at that time of being a 'fighting propaganda group', the Sparts also influenced them to read Stalin on the national question and to my knowledge they are the only groups among the Trotskyoid left who favourably refer to Stalin in this way, but enough this is tired and I well recall Daves H and S toting their copies of Workers Vanguard.

As for WP being in the tradition of Trotsky I recall the previous prgramme that WP produced the misnamed Trotskyist Manifesto. It was so far from having any grasp on reality that it had to be dumped a year later when large chuncks of it were invalidated by reality. WP has major problems with reality I find.

[RevolverNo9]

My only 'Spartacist Incident' was, indeed, memorable. At the last London war march an American woman tried to convince me that CWI was pro-war (?) before selling me Workers' Vanguard (such a chauvanist title should have warned me from the start). The headline? Along the lines of: 'DEFEND THE DEFORMED WORKERS STATE OF NORTH KOREA AT ALL COSTS!'. Nice.

They then wrote an impassioned defence of an organisation called NAMBLA which stands for, wait for it, 'North American Man/Boy Love Association'. Apparantly the social prejudice that makes us condemn peadophilia is just TOO bourgeois?

[Solidarnosc]

You should see this for what the Sparts think of the CWI *AND* NAMBLA.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wh/190/victorian.html

[RevolverNo9]

You should see this for what the Sparts think of the CWI *AND* NAMBLA.

Mon dieu... it's be funny if it weren't true.

This is possibly the most specious, false piece of logic I've encountered in a long time:


As we pointed out in Workers Hammer no 186, Winter 2003-2004, the Labour government's pretence at "child protection" in justifying its draconian legislation is truly twisted coming from "a Labour government that has administered the murder of hundreds of thousands of children through its filthy imperialist wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Serbia.

[Solidarnosc]

I think I know of the American woman - she is a bit mad. She once cornered me and I couldn't get away for what felt like three hours!

But then again, the left wouldn't be the same without the Sparts...

[redstar2000]

I once knew a Spart in a southern city who was a pretty reasonable guy. We did a little political work together and socialized quite a bit.

Well, you can probably imagine the outcome...the Sparts actually held a trial of this poor guy for "hanging out with me", put him on "probation" and then, I believe, ultimately gave him the boot.

Then there was the time that six Spartacists were kicked out of an SDS chapter for their usual disruptive behavior...and within weeks, three of them openly admitted they were cops.

Their "great leader" back then was a fellow by the name of Jim Robertson...a notorious drunk. Once he was scheduled to debate some follower of Albanian despot Enver Hoxha...but of course, he failed to show up. The other Sparts knew Jim's favorite watering holes and managed to track him down and get him to the auditorium in time for the debate.

So the pro-Albanian guy makes his opening statement -- "Albania is the only true socialist fatherland in the world today, blah, blah, blah."

Robertson staggers to the podium and replies, "Albania...is a nation of goatfuckers!"

They are truly "a world unto themselves". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 11:36 PM
Their "great leader" back then was a fellow by the name of Jim Robertson...a notorious drunk. Once he was scheduled to debate some follower of Albanian despot Enver Hoxha...but of course, he failed to show up. The other Sparts knew Jim's favorite watering holes and managed to track him down and get him to the auditorium in time for the debate.

So the pro-Albanian guy makes his opening statement -- "Albania is the only true socialist fatherland in the world today, blah, blah, blah."

Robertson staggers to the podium and replies, "Albania...is a nation of goatfuckers!"

They are truly "a world unto themselves". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Somewhere in my archives I have a tape of the infamous "goatfucker" speech. "Reverend Jim" is well-known for his outrageous statements. Two examples stand out:

1. Back in the early 1980s, Robertson visited Germany to meet with the people involved in the Spartacist satellite. They wanted to show their gratitude and took Jim out to a nice, fancy restaurant. Jim wanted a well-done steak for dinner, so when the waiter came to take their order, Robertson looked at the guy and ordered ... wait for it ... "steak à la Auschwitz".

2. Not too long ago, Robertson was leading an educational series on the struggles in the Middle East. During his talk on the struggle of the Kurds for self-determination, he referred to them as "Turds", illiciting laughs from the crowd of "comrades".

Miles

[joshdavies]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 01:52 PM
2. Not too long ago, Robertson was leading an educational series on the struggles in the Middle East. During his talk on the struggle of the Kurds for self-determination, he referred to them as "Turds", illiciting laughs from the crowd of "comrades".
At the London ESF a WP member from Berlin who was being harrassed by the Sparts about China asked the Spart for the documents on 'The Turds Debate' and the Spart went to get them! I think the IBT's website is the only one you can type 'turds' into as a search and get polemics in the results :D

[Entrails Konfetti]

I think the Nazbols are more hillarious than the "spartacists"!

www.bolsheviks.org

[Guest]

I couple of years ago I was at some anti war event at Berkeley and I accidently browsed over to the Spart table. I look up and the guy traps me in a conversation. I act like I'm not familiar with what he's talking about because I don't want him to try to recruit me or invite me to a study group. I do make the mistake of asking, "So, does that 4 in your logo stand for the 4th international?"

His jaw drops and he asks how I know that.
"Umm, no reason. Gotta go" I say.

The next day my friend and I are wearing bandanas and holding some anarchist banner and that spart guy walks by and says hi. I guess he found me out. Ha

[JC1]

heh, once I was at a anit-war rally and some-wacko trot (USFI Guy, not a spart) comes up to me trying to get me to by a paper. It was like 3-4 $ , and I'm like "Sorry man, im a member of the workin class, I cant pay those prices".

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 01:30 AM
They also hold, through Workers Hammer, the best headline in a left wing newspaper, ever, for "There Ain't Anything Wrong With A Little Bit Of Bump & Grind: Defend R Kelly" about the underage sex charges against R Kelly, Absolute classic!
:lol:

check this out:

Sex is a natural activity for humans—even children. We believe that in any kind of sexual relations, the guiding principle should be effective consent, regardless of age, gender or race. That is, if those involved have effective knowledge and desire to do whatever it is they will, that should be the end of it. We oppose arbitrary and reactionary state interference in such intimate matters. As we stated when the trial began:

"The capitalist state is intent on banning all sex for young people to prepare them for a life of unfulfilled desires and urges by imposing abstinence, guilt and fear about wanting to have sex. These laws have nothing to do with protecting children; all they do is enforce puritanical values pushed by religion, and provide a moral justification for government interference in all other aspects of life. As Marxists, we reject all laws that criminalize consensual sex for youth, with or without adult partners. Down with all reactionary 'age of consent' laws!"

—"Stop Vendetta Against Michael Jackson!" WV No. 818, 23 January 2004

We fight for people's right to have consensual sex with whomever they choose. Or to look at pornography. Or to do nothing at all. The point is, absent coercion, it just isn't any business of the government—and we mean any government, including in a future workers state.

link (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/851/jackson.html)

[Solidarnosc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 10:33 PM
heh, once I was at a anit-war rally and some-wacko trot (USFI Guy, not a spart) comes up to me trying to get me to by a paper. It was like 3-4 $ , and I'm like "Sorry man, im a member of the workin class, I cant pay those prices".
Stalinists these days aren't a part of the working class in any case.

They're either up there in the union bureaucracy or down the Post Office getting their pensions*. Any slightly "young" CP members are because their parents are.

A dying breed, thank fuck.

(* No offence to old people.)

[shadows]

The Spartacist League continues to have polemical verve, hewing to Lenin's line that the communists must be a tribune of the people. The SL, now International Communist League, has survived two major splits: the more recent Internationalist Group, of Jan Norden (former editor of the quite good Workers Vanguard) and prior to this, sometime in the seventies, the International Bolshevik Tendency. See the website, where I believe you can still read good analysis of the resurgent anarchist trends and history of the vile Makhno grouplet. Today, in the US, the ICL is one of few Marxist groups consistently putting forth a Leninist-Trotskyist line. For those who are averse to Leninism, or to Trotskyism, the ICL might seem 'over the top' (their line on Khomeini in 1979 was ridiculed by the majority of 'leftists' and their principled defense of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was likewise criticized by right leaning Maoists in bed with the mullahs), but compared to the revisionist neo-Trots of the American SWP, or the insipid Cliffites of the ISO, the ICL has a lot more going for it in its sense of history and discipline.
http://www.internationalist.org/

http://www.bolshevik.org/

http://www.icl-fi.org/

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 01:30 AM
The Spartacist League continues to have polemical verve, hewing to Lenin's line that the communists must be a tribune of the people. The SL, now International Communist League, has survived two major splits: the more recent Internationalist Group, of Jan Norden (former editor of the quite good Workers Vanguard) and prior to this, sometime in the seventies, the International Bolshevik Tendency. See the website, where I believe you can still read good analysis of the resurgent anarchist trends and history of the vile Makhno grouplet. Today, in the US, the ICL is one of few Marxist groups consistently putting forth a Leninist-Trotskyist line. For those who are averse to Leninism, or to Trotskyism, the ICL might seem 'over the top' (their line on Khomeini in 1979 was ridiculed by the majority of 'leftists' and their principled defense of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was likewise criticized by right leaning Maoists in bed with the mullahs), but compared to the revisionist neo-Trots of the American SWP, or the insipid Cliffites of the ISO, the ICL has a lot more going for it in its sense of history and discipline.
http://www.internationalist.org/

http://www.bolshevik.org/

http://www.icl-fi.org/
I smell a ringer! A Spart ringer, to be exact! Few people other than Spartacists refer to their organization as "the SL". Unfortunately (or maybe not), this one is relatively new and has not had the full catechism. Otherwise, s/he would know that the actual split that became the IBT (the "External Tendency of the international Spartacist tendency") occurred in the early 1980s, but the fight itself began in the 1970s, over what the minority perceived as the organization's liquidation of its trade union fractions in the CWA and ILWU (both of which had been relatively successful, as such things go). It broke into the open when the Sparts put forward the slogan, "Fly! Fly! Fly!", in response to the half-hearted picketing during the PATCO strike.

Miles

[bcbm]

The Sparts come up here from Chicago every year to sell papers and what have you during the campus' student organization festival. They invariably set up near the ISO (International Socialist Organization) and end up getting in a fight. Last year it was a middle aged guy and four young college-girls. He would always cut them off whenever they started talking, and couldn't seem to shut up. Still, he was interesting to talk to, though I couldn't get a word in edgewise.

My best memory of the day is one of the sparts (young, white, college girl) saying to one of the ISO (young, white, college girl), while discussing: "What do you know about black oppression?" I was right behind them at the time, and couldn't stop laughing for about 3 minutes.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:35 PM
Stalinists these days aren't a part of the working class in any case.


In JC's defense, his parents aren't from the party and your statement is bullshit, not to mention a very shitty definition of "Stalinist". Also, in my experience it has been the Trots coming from middle-class backgrounds. I was once in a room with a dozen Trots who all confessed they had never been part of a Union, in any capacity, except for one that was in student union. Pathetic.


They're either up there in the union bureaucracy

Higly unlikely.


or down the Post Office getting their pensions*.

Oh, is that just too working class for you?


Any slightly "young" CP members are because their parents are.

What CP? If you are talking CPC/CPUSA type CP they're not even "Stalinist" unless you go by moronic Trotskyite standards. Or are you just stating "CP" in general because Trots are too shit to make any party?


A dying breed, thank fuck.

Actually, Stalin is becoming more and more reactified as the truth emerges, and all the biggest revolutionary movements in the world aren't Trotskyites.

(* No offence to old people.)

[Comrade Marcel]

On a funny note, when I was with the (now-defunct) Rebel Youth Network delegation to the WTO protests in Montreal we chased away a Spart by beating him with our Red Books and chanting "Mao Zedong! Mao Zedong!". It was fucking great.

[kaaos_af]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 08:34 PM
heh, once I was at a anit-war rally and some-wacko trot (USFI Guy, not a spart) comes up to me trying to get me to by a paper. It was like 3-4 $ , and I'm like "Sorry man, im a member of the workin class, I cant pay those prices".
The Sparts here in Oz charge 50c for a paper- $5 a year subscription- I subscribed :D now I get to read their monthly attacks on "those damned Stalinist counter-revolutionaries in all the other so-called 'socialist' groups, who don't support the Stalinist deformed worker's states in China and North Korea!"

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 10:28 PM
If anyone does know this group - does any thoughts on them?
I hate them with every fibre in my body.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by kaaos_af+Jul 11 2006, 11:04 AM--> (kaaos_af @ Jul 11 2006, 11:04 AM)
[email protected] 7 2005, 08:34 PM
heh, once I was at a anit-war rally and some-wacko trot (USFI Guy, not a spart) comes up to me trying to get me to by a paper. It was like 3-4 $ , and I'm like "Sorry man, im a member of the workin class, I cant pay those prices".
The Sparts here in Oz charge 50c for a paper- $5 a year subscription- I subscribed :D now I get to read their monthly attacks on "those damned Stalinist counter-revolutionaries in all the other so-called 'socialist' groups, who don't support the Stalinist deformed worker's states in China and North Korea!" [/b]
Yeah, if there is one thing in defense of the Sparts is that they charge working-class prices for their papers and even cheaper on subscriptions. The papers are actually good for a laugh, and come in handy if you run out of toilet paper unexpectedly (I think I still have some from like 2003 sitting in the washroom just in case). ;)

[kaaos_af]

Yeah- their opinions are extreme... but they have got their facts right- give them that. I actually found a recent article on Kronstadt pretty interesting- changed my opinion about the event. So give them some credit.

[TC]

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Sparticists. They are brave enough and hardline enough to take unpopular, uncompromizing positions but ones that come down on the right side almost every time.

I've been to a number of Spacticist meetings both in the US and UK, and while i support them and agree with them in most of their positions i'm not going to join because i don't like the culture of the organization and i'm not a trotskyist.

I was really impressed that they not only supported the Soviet defense of the people of Afghanistan against the CIA backed Mujahdeen but they attempted to organize international brigades to help fight on behalf of the socialists against the islamists.

I also think its excellent that they've been vocal in their support of the DPRK's right to nuclear deterent against imperialism.

[Comrade Marcel]

I was really impressed that they not only supported the Soviet defense of the people of Afghanistan against the CIA backed Mujahdeen but they attempted to organize international brigades to help fight on behalf of the socialists against the islamists.

You were impressed by that? I think they were a bunch of dipshits. They bash the Soviet Union then decide to support a massively unpopular invasion by revisionist "Stalinists". Pretty dumb.

Also, could you actually imagine these people actually going there: "Wait, you guys I dropped my glasses down the mountain..."

"Excuse me sir, could you stop praying to Alah for one moment and take a look at this copy of the Worker's Vangaurd? It will teach you that your religion is oppressing you and that you should let your daughters have sex and wear whatever clothing they want! Please don't skin me alive!"

(To Soviet troop) "Hey Tovarisch, you know that comrade Trotsky was the real thing right? Help us sweep up the Stalinist buereuacrats! Wait, let me go, don't send me back to America comrade, they'll charge me with treason!"

[shadows]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Jul 11 2006, 07:15 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Jul 11 2006, 07:15 AM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 01:30 AM
The Spartacist League continues to have polemical verve, hewing to Lenin's line that the communists must be a tribune of the people. The SL, now International Communist League, has survived two major splits: the more recent Internationalist Group, of Jan Norden (former editor of the quite good Workers Vanguard) and prior to this, sometime in the seventies, the International Bolshevik Tendency. See the website, where I believe you can still read good analysis of the resurgent anarchist trends and history of the vile Makhno grouplet. Today, in the US, the ICL is one of few Marxist groups consistently putting forth a Leninist-Trotskyist line. For those who are averse to Leninism, or to Trotskyism, the ICL might seem 'over the top' (their line on Khomeini in 1979 was ridiculed by the majority of 'leftists' and their principled defense of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was likewise criticized by right leaning Maoists in bed with the mullahs), but compared to the revisionist neo-Trots of the American SWP, or the insipid Cliffites of the ISO, the ICL has a lot more going for it in its sense of history and discipline.
http://www.internationalist.org/

http://www.bolshevik.org/

http://www.icl-fi.org/
I smell a ringer! A Spart ringer, to be exact! Few people other than Spartacists refer to their organization as "the SL". Unfortunately (or maybe not), this one is relatively new and has not had the full catechism. Otherwise, s/he would know that
Miles [/b]
the actual split that became the IBT (the "External Tendency of the international Spartacist tendency") occurred in the early 1980s, but the fight itself began in the 1970s, over what the minority perceived as the organization's liquidation of its trade union fractions in the CWA and ILWU (both of which had been relatively successful, as such things go). It broke into the open when the Sparts put forward the slogan, "Fly! Fly! Fly!", in response to the half-hearted picketing during the PATCO strike.


The ET/IBT originated in the '70s as a faction within SL, from leadership in Australia I think, and the issue was personal/sexual domination of members by the leading clique of that time - potential rivals to Robertson, perhaps. The IBT, now minuscule, publishes fun tirades against the SL/ICL, fraught with personal venom. The Internationalist Group has no apparent political connection with the IBT, though the IBT has made (see their website) a few overtures to the IG.

My acquaintance with SL goes back some time, but has always been from the outside. I admire the political thrust that informs the SL's interpretation of history and the Prometheus Library's dedicated repository of left history.

The Workers League, an outfit once rivaling the SL, and now reincarnated as the Socialist Equality Party, originated from the time of the Revolutionary Tendency in the SWP and was, in a sense, animated by the same idea: the Cuban revolution was not a proletarian revolution and hence deserved critical support but should not be seen as a socialist revolution in the way the Russian revolution was.

Both WL and SL, issuing from the RT, were enamored with Gerry Healy's Brit outfit, but SL went on to become critics of Healy while WL became slavish Healyites.

Healyism Implodes is a memorable publication by the SL on the demise of the Brit group WRL. The series of pamphlets Hate Trotskyism, Hate the Spartacist League has lots of good material from and against left rivals of the SL.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by shadows+Jul 11 2006, 01:13 PM--> (shadows @ Jul 11 2006, 01:13 PM)The ET/IBT originated in the '70s as a faction within SL, from leadership in Australia I think, and the issue was personal/sexual domination of members by the leading clique of that time - potential rivals to Robertson, perhaps.[/b]

No, the Logan group was separate from the BT until the mid-1990s, when they merged and changed their name to the IBT. In terms of the Logan trial itself, I always thought it was interesting that the only non-Spartacist member of the tribunal, Edmund Samarakkody of Sri Lanka, was also the only one to vote against Logan's expulsion.


Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 01:13 PM
The IBT, now minuscule, publishes fun tirades against the SL/ICL, fraught with personal venom. The Internationalist Group has no apparent political connection with the IBT, though the IBT has made (see their website) a few overtures to the IG.

The IBT has always been miniscule. And, yeah, the IBT has been trying to make nice with Norden, et al., but it's going nowhere.


Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 01:13 PM
My acquaintance with SL goes back some time, but has always been from the outside. I admire the political thrust that informs the SL's interpretation of history and the Prometheus Library's dedicated repository of left history.

I like a lot of what the PRL has produced, too. Credit where credit is due, the PRL is one of the best research libraries for leftwing history out there.


[email protected] 11 2006, 01:13 PM
The Workers League, an outfit once rivaling the SL, and now reincarnated as the Socialist Equality Party, originated from the time of the Revolutionary Tendency in the SWP and was, in a sense, animated by the same idea: the Cuban revolution was not a proletarian revolution and hence deserved critical support but should not be seen as a socialist revolution in the way the Russian revolution was.

Both WL and SL, issuing from the RT, were enamored with Gerry Healy's Brit outfit, but SL went on to become critics of Healy while WL became slavish Healyites.

Healyism Implodes is a memorable publication by the SL on the demise of the Brit group WRL. The series of pamphlets Hate Trotskyism, Hate the Spartacist League has lots of good material from and against left rivals of the SL.

Actually, it was the WRP, not WRL. And, yeah, that pamphlet (an adaptation of an issue of Spartacist, as I recall) is ... memorable.

Miles

[shadows]

No, the Logan group was separate from the BT until the mid-1990s, when they merged and changed their name to the IBT. (Miles)

Thanks for the correction - I'm not one to sort all that out well. I'm happy to hear someone else appreciates the general thrust of the SL, at least on occasion, and esp. in their archival work.

Here is the address of the Prometheus Research Library, if you haven't already investigated.

http://www.prl.org/

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 07:19 PM
Thanks for the correction - I'm not one to sort all that out well. I'm happy to hear someone else appreciates the general thrust of the SL, at least on occasion, and esp. in their archival work.
Actually, it's not so much appreciation as it is having a lot of back issues of their publications, and stacks of IBs from people who were in either the SL/ICL or ET/BT/IBT. I was never a member of either group, just someone who was willing to inherit these comrades' libraries.

Miles

[shadows]

Nor have I ever been a member of the SL. Yet, I am (somewhat) familiar with their press and for the most part admire the consistency of their Marxism. From my memory, the SL never dipped into anti-Sovietism, as has been common among some Trots.

Only a few left org. defended the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan, for example. The SL, WWP, and CP come to mind. The Maoists saw the event as a contest between 'revisionism/social imperialism' and the vague 'people's war'.

Still, the IBT criticism of 'Robertsonism' persists, though the IG doesn't see it that way at all: just a post-Soviet degeneration of the SL into passive phrase-mongering.

On a different subject, the writings of Isaac Deutscher retain relevance even today - the analysis of Trotsky's wavering in denouncing Stalin, Stalin's substitution of himself for the CC (after the CC in effect replaces the party, and the party before that had replaced the proletariat). The perspicacity of his analysis given the time in which he wrote remains valuable today.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 11:27 PM
Nor have I ever been a member of the SL. Yet, I am (somewhat) familiar with their press and for the most part admire the consistency of their Marxism. From my memory, the SL never dipped into anti-Sovietism, as has been common among some Trots.

Only a few left org. defended the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan, for example. The SL, WWP, and CP come to mind. The Maoists saw the event as a contest between 'revisionism/social imperialism' and the vague 'people's war'.

Still, the IBT criticism of 'Robertsonism' persists, though the IG doesn't see it that way at all: just a post-Soviet degeneration of the SL into passive phrase-mongering.

On a different subject, the writings of Isaac Deutscher retain relevance even today - the analysis of Trotsky's wavering in denouncing Stalin, Stalin's substitution of himself for the CC (after the CC in effect replaces the party, and the party before that had replaced the proletariat). The perspicacity of his analysis given the time in which he wrote remains valuable today.
This is fast getting to be a theoretical discussion. I would suggest starting a thread over there.

Miles

[kaaos_af]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 11 2006, 04:49 PM


(To Soviet troop) "Hey Tovarisch, you know that comrade Trotsky was the real thing right? Help us sweep up the Stalinist buereuacrats! Wait, let me go, don't send me back to America comrade, they'll charge me with treason!"
Hm- don't be so hasty- remember that during WWII, some of their Belgian members managed to create Trotskyist cells in the occupying German army...

also remember the massive rallies they held in the GDR in 1989 against the FDR...

[shadows]

Those rallies against capitalist reunification were some of the only attempts to preserve the gains of the German communists! Additionally, the Sparts stood at the barricades against the counter-revolutionary Yeltsin.

[Solidarnosc]

In JC's defense, his parents aren't from the party and your statement is bullshit, not to mention a very shitty definition of "Stalinist".

As the O Rly owl says; o rly?


Also, in my experience it has been the Trots coming from middle-class backgrounds.

As do the mass ranks of the CPB, unless they're union bureaucrats. This trot is working class as it goes, not that it matters.


I was once in a room with a dozen Trots who all confessed they had never been part of a Union, in any capacity, except for one that was in student union. Pathetic.

I've been in two notionally 'Trotskyist' organsiation and they were all, without fail, members of their appropriate union.


Higly unlikely.

As one of a rare breed (a Trotskyist former union bureaucrat), I can tell you; a lot of the bureaucracies of unions are made up of ex-CP members.


Oh, is that just too working class for you?

No, shit, sorry. They all have university or civil service pensions. Apologies.


What CP? If you are talking CPC/CPUSA type CP they're not even "Stalinist" unless you go by moronic Trotskyite standards. Or are you just stating "CP" in general because Trots are too shit to make any party?

Oooh, hit a nerve, have I?

I was referring to the joke that is the CPB. I couldn't possibly comment on any other CP.


Actually, Stalin is becoming more and more reactified as the truth emerges, and all the biggest revolutionary movements in the world aren't Trotskyites.

Well, they're hardly singing your praises either, eh? Revolutionary movements? What, do you mean the Maoists in Nepal? Hmmm, didn't they think Stalinism went shit around the time of the Sino-Soviet split?

[Iranon]

Hmmm, didn't they think Stalinism went shit around the time of the Sino-Soviet split?

I suggest you read up on your history; the Sino-Soviet split, amongst other things, was because of Kruschev's "Secret Speech" wherein he defamed Stalin. The Maoists, up until the "Gang of Four" shit, told the revisionists to fuck off and upheld Stalin.

EDIT:

Dude, it's even in Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruschev

[Solidarnosc]

He defamed the man, but not the method. In any case, Maoism broke with Marxism when it based itself on a petty-bougeois class. That's why they broke.

But getting the truth out of a Tankie is much harder.

[Iranon]

He defamed the man, but not the method.

I suggest you read the speech, as it proves you to be quite incorrect: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1956khr...ev-secret1.html (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1956khrushchev-secret1.html)

Anyways, Solid, you also ignore the revolutions that continue to occur in Peru, Phillipines, and India.

[Solidarnosc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 11:23 PM

He defamed the man, but not the method.

I suggest you read the speech, as it proves you to be quite incorrect: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1956khr...ev-secret1.html (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1956khrushchev-secret1.html)

Anyways, Solid, you also ignore the revolutions that continue to occur in Peru, Phillipines, and India.
No, I've read the secret speech, thank you. He attacked the cult of personality, but he still kept in place much of the repressive features of Stalinism in place, like the oppression of democracy in the Party and the masses, free speech, independent trade unions etc.

As Ol' Leon said while he was sunning himself (jammy sod):

In inner-party politics, these methods lead, as we shall yet see, to this: the party organization substitutes itself for the party, the central committee substitutes itself for the organization, and, finally, a "dictator" substitutes himself for the central committee.

The revolutions in Peru, Phillipines and India? Forgive my impetulence, but they haven't suceeded, and will fail to do so. Revolutions come through the masses, not tinpot Mao wannabes playing soldiers in the countryside.

[shadows]

how true! Stalin replaced the central committee with himself, effectively negating the democracy in democratic centralism. One antecedent move, though, for which Stalin could not be the culprit was that - given the withering of the Russian proletariat during the long bloody civil war and imperialist encirclement - the party replaced the proletariat. A necessary evil, for anything less would have meant defeat for the Russian revolution. Thus began the substitutions, under intense pressures from the bourgeoisie.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Anyways, Solid, you also ignore the revolutions that continue to occur in Peru, Phillipines, and India.

You left out Colombia.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:35 PM
Stalinists these days aren't a part of the working class in any case.

They're either up there in the union bureaucracy or down the Post Office getting their pensions*. Any slightly "young" CP members are because their parents are.

A dying breed, thank fuck.

(* No offence to old people.)
I'd beg to differ.


The SL, now International Communist League, has survived two major splits
LOLOLOL. I love trots wearing their splits like badges of honour. I can just see an old trot teaching new ones by the fire... "Now, you young whippersnappers ain't seen nothin' yet... I've done seen a damn lot of splits in my days, I'll tell you..."


I was once in a room with a dozen Trots
:blink: How did you end up in that situation? And how did you get away alive?

[Victory Of The People!]

I have met with the Spartacist League on a number of occasions, and i must say, they are VERY strange, both personally and politically. They usually come to leftist gatherings in large groups, then stand up and read denunciations of other groups from a piece of paper, almost as if they were afraid to mess up a word for fear of punishment. The denunciation usually has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. Also, they sometimes denounce speakers for not saying something that in fact the speaker did say, but because the paper was written the day before it couldn't be edited on the spot. Very interesting group indeed.

With that said however, the members that I have come into contact with ARE sincere in their desire for socialist revolution. Its just the way they act toward others that puts a lot of people off. If they would just chill out a little bit and approach people differently they might stand a chance of gaining supporters but that seems unlikely to happen. They may be nutty, but they are still our comrades.

[Crux]

:blink: How did you end up in that situation? And how did you get away alive?
I once was in a room with 300+ trots. It was quite pleasant.

[BOZG]

[b]Also, they sometimes denounce speakers for not saying something that in fact the speaker did say, but because the paper was written the day before it couldn't be edited on the spot.[b/] Very interesting group indeed.

With that said however, the members that I have come into contact with ARE sincere in their desire for socialist revolution. Its just the way they act toward others that puts a lot of people off. If they would just chill out a little bit and approach people differently they might stand a chance of gaining supporters but that seems unlikely to happen. They may be nutty, but they are still our comrades.

Yeah, I've seen them do that at every meeting. They've effectively withdrawn from Ireland now though they periodically ship a few people in from the UK for significant demonstrations.

The problem is that they can't chill out, they can't approach people differently. Their whole tradition is based on that approach and any change would inevitably force people to break with them.

[RED DAVE]

I have met with the Spartacist League on a number of occasions, and i must say, they are VERY strange, both personally and politically. They usually come to leftist gatherings in large groups, then stand up and read denunciations of other groups from a piece of paper, almost as if they were afraid to mess up a word for fear of punishment. The denunciation usually has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. Also, they sometimes denounce speakers for not saying something that in fact the speaker did say, but because the paper was written the day before it couldn't be edited on the spot. Very interesting group indeed.

With that said however, the members that I have come into contact with ARE sincere in their desire for socialist revolution. Its just the way they act toward others that puts a lot of people off. If they would just chill out a little bit and approach people differently they might stand a chance of gaining supporters but that seems unlikely to happen. They may be nutty, but they are still our comrades.The Sparts have been pulling this shit for decades. I remember once at a political gathering in New York, during a discussion of Haiti, a Spart got up and read some kind of rant against the party of the speaker. He wouldn't shut up, and eventually, he had to be dragged out, still reading.

The sincerity of the Sparts isn't the issue. The question is: what kind of mentality considers this to be acceptable behavior by a revolutionary. It's kind of like the RCP and their hero-worship of Kevinbakian.

RED DAVE

[BOZG]

No, the Logan group was separate from the BT until the mid-1990s, when they merged and changed their name to the IBT. In terms of the Logan trial itself, I always thought it was interesting that the only non-Spartacist member of the tribunal, Edmund Samarakkody of Sri Lanka, was also the only one to vote against Logan's expulsion.

I think it's quite funny that they ignorethe criticisms that Samarakkody made of the ICL leadership while emphasising his criticisms of Logan.

The Logan Dossier is definitely one of the strangest documents I've ever read. It merely comes across as the insane ramblings of Jim Robertson and does absolutely no service to the ICL themselves. It's interesting that they completely ignore the racist slurs used by Robertson throughout.

[Q]

I have met with the Spartacist League on a number of occasions, and i must say, they are VERY strange, both personally and politically. They usually come to leftist gatherings in large groups, then stand up and read denunciations of other groups from a piece of paper, almost as if they were afraid to mess up a word for fear of punishment. The denunciation usually has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. Also, they sometimes denounce speakers for not saying something that in fact the speaker did say, but because the paper was written the day before it couldn't be edited on the spot. Very interesting group indeed.

With that said however, the members that I have come into contact with ARE sincere in their desire for socialist revolution. Its just the way they act toward others that puts a lot of people off. If they would just chill out a little bit and approach people differently they might stand a chance of gaining supporters but that seems unlikely to happen. They may be nutty, but they are still our comrades.

Behind this apparently troublesome behaviour is actually a method that John Sullivan described quite well (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/critiques/sullivan/pub-5sparts.html).

[Palingenisis]

Its pretty disgusting to see Trots slander the one principled group among you...But I guess Trots will be Trots...:rolleyes:

[Q]

Its pretty disgusting to see Trots slander the one principled group among you...But I guess Trots will be Trots...:rolleyes:

Cool story bro.

[Proletarian Ultra]

The Sparts are total assholes and even worse they're right most of the time.

Read all their stuff and avoid personal contact.

[A.R.Amistad]

I've heard that members aren't allowed to marry "outside of the party." Its like theyre mormons or something.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I was at a labor rally a few years ago. The Sparts were selling their paper, "Worker's Vanguard". That was the time of the North Korea nukes scare, whipped up by the US media. The front page of WV said, in big letters, "Defend North Korea's Right To Have Nuclear Weapons!" I saw a union member walking and reading WV. He said to himself, "What is this shit?", and threw it to the ground.

They seem to be cult like. They're oriented strictly to the left and their main activity is heckling other groups.They can be quite funny at times and are good for comic relief.

Their outspoken , in your face support for NAMBLA has created problems. At times when I told people I'm a socialist they've associated it w/this organization.
I can't post links but google "The Road To Jimstown" for a good take on the Sparts.

[A.R.Amistad]

The Sparts are total assholes and even worse they're right most of the time.

Read all their stuff and avoid personal contact.

What do you mean by "they're right most of the time"?

[Q]

I can't post links
You can as you've 25 posts now ;)

Anyway, besides the single IBT member in the Netherlands, I also had a close encounter with a group of Sparts. On Socialism 2008 in London there was this debate between the SPEW and SWP. One of the Sparts on the floor then started to denounce all speakers as they were "reformists" and that we should defend the Peoples Republic of China. The headline on their paper at that time also carried that headline.

I should have bought one and have a real traditional fish & chips. Oh well.

[Proletarian Ultra]

I was at a labor rally a few years ago. The Sparts were selling their paper, "Worker's Vanguard". That was the time of the North Korea nukes scare, whipped up by the US media. The front page of WV said, in big letters, "Defend North Korea's Right To Have Nuclear Weapons!" I saw a union member walking and reading WV. He said to himself, "What is this shit?", and threw it to the ground.

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

[Q]

The Sparts are total assholes and even worse they're right most of the time.

Read all their stuff and avoid personal contact.


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

Do you think they're right about that? If so, why?

[Proletarian Ultra]

Do you think they're right about that? If so, why?

NoKo is a very shitty place. Much like the former East Bloc. When the East Bloc fell, despite how shitty it was, the result was a catastrophe for the international working class. It unleashed a wave of reaction and capitalist triumphalism that is only now starting to wane. The way shit turned out post-'89 entirely refutes the Third Camp approach to the Russian question and confirms the degenerated workers' state analysis.

So...NoKo is an awful, awful place to live. But when it falls, want to guess what happens to workers' rights in SoKo, China and Japan?

That's why socialists should support the Norks' right to nuclear weapons - i.e. their right to an insurance policy against invasion or aggression.

And/but: that sign is totally fucking nuts.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

The existence of state capitalism in North Korea improves the lives of workers in Japan how? Do you defend North Korea's right to use nuclear weapons, or just to have them?

[BOZG]

That's why socialists should support the Norks' right to nuclear weapons - i.e. their right to an insurance policy against invasion or aggression.

But they're only a deterrent if you're willing to use them. What does that say to workers internationally?

[fredbergen]

But they're only a deterrent if you're willing to use them. What does that say to workers internationally?

It says to this worker that Soviet nuclear weapons were the reason U.S. imperialist madmen couldn't turn Vietnam and China into radioactive wastelands. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" are why Iraq is suffering under colonial occupation today: Iraq didn't have them, thank goodness the DPRK does!

As the Trotskyists of the Internationalist Group wrote in The Great Chemical Weapons Hoax (http://www.internationalist.org/chemwarhoax0503a.html) (see below), the poverty that prevails in North Korea is a result of the unimaginable scale of mass murder and destruction that the imperialists rained down during the Korean war. Every city north of the 38th latitude line was leveled by bombs and incinerated by millions of gallons of Napalm. The Kim dynasty-bureaucracy has its material basis in the extreme scarcity and destruction caused by the imperialist invasion and perpetuated by the DPRK's isolation and constant threat of a new invasion.


Korea

The Korean War is often referred to as the “forgotten war.” Certainly, over the decades the imperialist media have done their best to cover up the war crimes carried out there by the United States, Australian and other imperialist military forces during 1950-53 under the flag of the United Nations. A hole in the curtain of ignorance was ripped by the revelations in a September 1999 AP report by courageous Korean journalists, who demonstrated in great detail how the U.S. Army slaughtered 400 or more Korean civilians huddling under a bridge at No Gun Ri on 26 July 1950. Despite efforts by “responsible” American media executives to impugn the U.S. soldiers who confirmed the massacre, and intense pressure from the Pentagon on them to recant their testimony, the facts of this cold-blooded mass murder have been established beyond any doubt.

Yet No Gun Ri was only one of many atrocities committed by the U.S. imperialist forces and their South Korean puppet army in this first major engagement in the anti-Soviet Cold War, a war that lasted almost half a century. Among many other cases, in the same month of July 1950 more than 1,800 Korean Communist political prisoners were executed in Taejon, South Korea and their bodies thrown into a mass grave. U.S. Army photos of this slaughter were long classified Top Secret. A South Korean admiral reported that 200 people were taken off shore from Pohong and dumped into the sea. Another classified document reported the execution in August 1950 of between 200 and 300 Korean prisoners, who were lined up on a cliff near Taegu and shot. Villagers in Dokchon reported that truckloads of prisoners were taken into the hills and shot. Declassified documents confirm that it was U.S. policy for fighter jets to strafe civilian refugee columns. Even before the outbreak of the Korean War, U.S. and South Korean forces massacred 30,000 to 60,000 civilians in suppressing the 3 April 1948 uprising on Cheju-do Island.



http://www.internationalist.org/taejonwww.jpg
U.S. puppet South Korean army massacred more than 1,800 Communist prisoners at Taejong in July 1950. (Photo: AP)

In North Korea, the U.S. policy of mass murder was carried out on an industrial scale. Napalm (jellied gasoline) and phosphorous bombs were systematically dropped in order to incinerate every city north of the 38th parallel (roughly marking the line between capitalist South Korea and the bureaucratically deformed workers state to the north). The North Korean capital was a particular object of Washington’s murderous fury. On 11 July 1952, the U.S. Air Force dropped 1,400 tons of bombs and 23,000 gallons of napalm on Pyongyang, leveling more than 1,500 buildings and killing many thousands. The American bombers returned on August 4 and again on August 29 to finish the job. By that time there was literally nothing left to hit. And not just in the north. General Curtis LeMay described the devastation saying, “we eventually burned down every town in North Korea... and some in South Korea too. We even burned down [the South Korean city of] Pusan – an accident, but we burned it down anyway” (from the PBS TV program, Race for the Superbomb, January 1999).

It is well-known that General Douglas MacArthur unsuccessfully pushed to A-bomb Chinese and North Korean forces in Korea and even Chinese industrial centers north of the Yalu. It is seldom reported, however, that from the very beginning of the Korean War, in August 1950 U.S. president Truman moved ten B-29s loaded with atomic bombs to Guam, that Eisenhower moved them up to Okinawa in 1953 to force the Soviets to accept an armistice, and that the U.S. actively considered using atomic weapons throughout the war. More than 2 million Korean civilians and another 1.5 million soldiers were killed in the Korean War, overwhelmingly by the U.S. and its allies. Today, U.S. president Bush again threatens “pre-emptive” action against North Korea’s tiny nuclear facilities, claiming they are a “threat” to the United States. In fact, it is U.S. imperialism which has not only threatened but carried out mass killings with chemical weapons in an attempt to obliterate North Korea.

As we stressed in “Defend North Korea Against Nuclear Blackmail and War Threats!” (The Internationalist No. 15 (http://www.internationalist.org/int15toc.html), January-February 2003): the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has the right to obtain any weapon it requires to defend itself against the imperialist mass murderers, and it is the obligation of every class-conscious worker and opponent of imperialism to defend North Korea against U.S. nuclear threats.

[BOZG]

It says to this worker that Soviet nuclear weapons were the reason U.S. imperialist madmen couldn't turn Vietnam and China into radioactive wastelands. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" are why Iraq is suffering under colonial occupation today: Iraq didn't have them, thank goodness the DPRK does!

I do take your point as I don't have a hard and fast position on it. But it also says to this worker, "If we have to, we'll also drop a nuclear bomb on you".