What is a Spartacist? [Archive]

BreadBros

26th June 2007, 23:39

German Spartacist League was a Marxist movement in Germany after World War I that led attempted working-class revolutions in Germany in 1918 and 1919. They later re-named themselves the German Communist Party (KPD). The two founders of the Spartacists (Liebknicht and Luxembourg) had split from the German SPD (which is still in existence, I believe).

The modern day group that goes by Spartacist League is a Trotskyist group. They are often referred to as "Ortho-Trots" because they remain committed to the original principles and theory of Trotsky unlike the various other Trotskyist groups in the US and abroad who they consider to have deviated from Trotskyism in one manner or another. They are famous for being very sectarian, that is to say, refusing to work with other leftist/communist groups and often attacking them in their newspaper.

The Advent of Anarchy

26th June 2007, 23:39

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 10:35 pm
Instead of listening to Axel's quaint, but unscientific opinions, check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International...rnationalist%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Communist_League_%28Fourth_Internati onalist%29)

They are ultra-orthodox Trotskyists -- of the sort that would make even Axel look like Stalinist agent!

And they are totally unreasonable -- and way past loopy!
Trotsky's more of a Stalinist agent than Axel could ever be.

Janus

26th June 2007, 23:43

Who are they and what is their political platform?
I'm assuming that you're talking about the current Spartacist League based on your use of the present tense?

The current Spartacist League is an international Trotskyist organization. As for their party platform:
Declaration of principles (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/icldop/index.html)

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th June 2007, 00:03

Now, now, Comrade Kriegsherr, any more of that and the Sparts will want to recruit you!!

bezdomni

27th June 2007, 00:18

a bunch of fucking lunatics.

If the radical left were a playground, they would be the kids that couldn't get along with anyone else.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th June 2007, 00:27

SP, they'd be worse: they'd go around breaking up all the on-going games, throwing the rule book at those playing soccer, basket ball or whatever, and inviting soviet tanks to sort out the recalcitrant! :D

bezdomni

27th June 2007, 01:57

I wish I had soviet tanks on my playground. :(

BOZG

27th June 2007, 02:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:39 pm
The modern day group that goes by Spartacist League is a Trotskyist group. They are often referred to as "Ortho-Trots" because they remain committed to the original principles and theory of Trotsky unlike the various other Trotskyist groups in the US and abroad who they consider to have deviated from Trotskyism in one manner or another. They are famous for being very sectarian, that is to say, refusing to work with other leftist/communist groups and often attacking them in their newspaper.
Except that they reject the Transitional Programme. Bit of a break from Orthodox Trotskyism.

Severian

27th June 2007, 05:31

But their most distinctive feature: the Sparts are the most rigidly sectarian group on the left. OK, they have a lot of competition, so it's debatable.

I mean they can be counted on to reject any real class struggle that may be going on - any strike, demonstration, you name it - because it doesn't have the exact doctrinally pure demands it ought to. Or because....they always have some excuse. They will almost never support anything they don't control.

Others have this problem, but they have it the most consistently and extremely.

Also, oddly, all members of the organization seem to have the same personality, at least while they're on duty. It's a pit bull's personality. They're even hostile to random people walking by when they're trying to sell their paper....Buy this paper! Or else you're a counterrevolutionary maggot!

OK, not in those words. But that's the tone of voice.

NorthStarRepublicML

27th June 2007, 07:53

thier base of operations is in Chicago, they stop up here in minneapolis about twice a year for a subscribtion drive and they usually end up getting into arguements with freedom road ......

couple fights from what i understand ....

they do not support any age of sexual consent laws, not sure if they directly support NAMBLA though .....

LuÃs Henrique

27th June 2007, 14:28

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 10:35 pm
And they are totally unreasonable -- and way past loopy!
That's an insult to unreasonable people, you know.

Luís Henrique

The Advent of Anarchy

27th June 2007, 14:46

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 11:03 pm
Now, now, Comrade Kriegsherr, any more of that and the Sparts will want to recruit you!!
You're all Stalinist agents! Even the Sparts are Stalinist agents! EVEN THE SQUIRREL BEHIND YOU IS A STALINIST AGENT! *squirrel with a stalin-esque mouthstache runs up the tree*

BOZG

27th June 2007, 14:46

The Sparts can be programmatically correct on a lot of things but they have no way of actually relating their position to ordinary, working class people. To them, approaching people with maximum demands and slogans is how to win them over rather than looking at where consciousness is at and trying to raise it. I will accept that they do consider themselves a propaganda group and as a result, they're aiming to build their revolutionary party rather than seeing themselves as a growing mass part so their programme does somewhat aim towards people with some level of class consciousness but whether they can actually turn towards the masses at some point is another question.

AmbitiousHedonism

27th June 2007, 15:03

my only experience with Sparts is that they showed up to a really good discussion at NCOR about tactics in the antiglobalization movement and tried to derail it into a discussion on Trostkyism... luckily a panelist told them to shut the fuck up and everyone just ignored them.

Redmau5

27th June 2007, 18:44

They will almost never support anything they don't control.

Reminds me of the SWP here in the North.

But the only time I ever ran into the Sparts was at the May Day rally last year, in which they defended paedophilia and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Says it all really. :rolleyes:

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th June 2007, 18:58

Makaveli:

Reminds me of the SWP here in the North.

Not so. The SWP supported, for example, the right of the Provos to fight the Brits.

Did they control the Provos??

And they supported the miners in the UK in 1985.

Did they control the NUM?

And they support the Iraqi resistance....

The list is almost endless.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th June 2007, 19:01

ComradeLosingIt:

You're all Stalinist agents! Even the Sparts are Stalinist agents! EVEN THE SQUIRREL BEHIND YOU IS A STALINIST AGENT! *squirrel with a stalin-esque mouthstache runs up the tree*

Fortunately, the tree is not a Stalinist agent. :lol:

But, on a positive note, it is less wooden than Axel. :D

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th June 2007, 19:03

LH:

That's an insult to unreasonable people, you know.

I am sorry, I meant you no slight! :P

Axel1917

27th June 2007, 19:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:44 pm

They will almost never support anything they don't control.

Reminds me of the SWP here in the North.

But the only time I ever ran into the Sparts was at the May Day rally last year, in which they defended paedophilia and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Says it all really. :rolleyes:
There is now a witness to the sickening things the Sparts defend, Rosa. I think they defend pedophilia as "intergenerational sex" or something like that.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th June 2007, 19:06

Axel, I stand corrected.

I will say a thousand Hale Pat Taafes in pennance. :P

Kropotkin Has a Posse

27th June 2007, 19:08

I met a couple of them at the March anti-war rally and we had a discussion. It was actually amazing because while we were waiting for it to start this guy from another, more entryist Marxist group (they want to radically reform our social-democratic party for some reaon) came up and offered his group's newspaper and they began to debate. It was fascinating, all the more since I didn't really support either side.

Anyways, I very quickly found that they don't like anarchists at all ("You should read 'State and Revolution'...") I got a hold of their newspaper and found that yes, they have campaigned admirably to help Mumia, but they also did a lecture explaining why "China isn't capitalist." This I found hard to swallow, the lack of regulation in Chinese industry seems to suggest it's more laissez-faire than America in some places. I saw a blurb written up suggesting that we "Defend degenerated worker's states" like North Korea and Vietnam, as if they can be somehow reformed into proper socialist states. They seemed almost interested in recruiting me, but I gave it a pass.

Axel1917

27th June 2007, 19:11

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27, 2007 06:06 pm
Axel, I stand corrected.

I will say a thousand Hale Pat Taafes in pennance. :P
Pennance rituals do not raise one's theoretical level! :D :P

I met a couple of them at the March anti-war rally and we had a discussion. It was actually amazing because while we were waiting for it to start this guy from another, more entryist Marxist group (they want to radically reform our social-democratic party for some reaon) came up and offered his group's newspaper and they began to debate. It was fascinating, all the more since I didn't really support either side.

Anyways, I very quickly found that they don't like anarchists at all ("You should read 'State and Revolution'...") I got a hold of their newspaper and found that yes, they have campaigned admirably to help Mumia, but they also did a lecture explaining why "China isn't capitalist." This I found hard to swallow, the lack of regulation in Chinese industry seems to suggest it's more laissez-faire than America in some places. I saw a blurb written up suggesting that we "Defend degenerated worker's states" like North Korea and Vietnam, as if they can be somehow reformed into proper socialist states. They seemed almost interested in recruiting me, but I gave it a pass.

They have some nonsensical ways it seems. China is captialist. In fact, the CCP has recently legalized private property in China This article is Trotskyist, so you may not agree with everything in it, but it does explain things pretty well for its short length, noting that the CCP are the ones who opened the doors to captialism in the first place. It was not that arbitrary Stalinist label, "revisionism" that led to capitalism (this term ignores living processes and essentially seems to exaggerate the ability of an individual to play a role in history.). See http://www.marxist.com/private-property-ch...alist010507.htm (http://www.marxist.com/private-property-china-capitalist010507.htm)

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th June 2007, 19:17

OMG, Axel has a sense of humour!!! :o :o :o :o

Pennance rituals do not raise one's theoretical level!

No, but they raised your chuckle quotient considerably!! :P

Redmau5

27th June 2007, 19:18

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27, 2007 05:58 pm
Makaveli:

Reminds me of the SWP here in the North.

Not so. The SWP supported, for example, the right of the Provos to fight the Brits.

Did they control the Provos??

And they supported the miners in the UK in 1985.

Did they control the NUM?

And they support the Iraqi resistance....

The list is almost endless.
I was referring to protest movements here. The Belfast Anti-War Movement has completely collapsed under the 'leadership' of the SWP. What started as a coalition of various groups quickly became a front for the SWP, with the entire leading committee being filled with SWP members who had elected themselves without consulting any of the other groups in the coalition.

The SWP even refused to join the We Won't Pay Campaign, a coalition of groups including the Socialist Party, the Fire Brigades Union, NIPSA (Northern Ireland's biggest public service union) and even the anarchist group Organise!. The WWPC was established in 2003 to encourage non-payment of water charges in the North. It has been campaigning for 4 years now. The SWP only established their campaign at the start of 2007.

This is of course only my personal experience of the SWP here in the North. I can't speak for the SWP in general. And anyway, let's not derail the thread completely.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th June 2007, 19:24

Makavelli:

I was referring to protest movements here. The Belfast Anti-War Movement has completely collapsed under the 'leadership' of the SWP. What started as a coalition of various groups quickly became a front for the SWP, with the entire leading committee being filled with SWP members who had elected themselves without consulting any of the other groups in the coalition.

So, you meant it only in a limited sense. Ok.

Now, I cannot speak about N Ireland, since I do not know the details, but the same sort of allegations are made in the UK, and they are baseless.

So, at best, this is a local beef.

But even if you are right in everything you say, that does not justify a general statement about the SWP in the North.

By no stretch of the imagination is the SWP like the Sparts.

PRC-UTE

27th June 2007, 23:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:44 pm

They will almost never support anything they don't control.

Reminds me of the SWP here in the North.

But the only time I ever ran into the Sparts was at the May Day rally last year, in which they defended paedophilia and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Says it all really. :rolleyes:
Interestingly enough, Eamonn McCann was once a member of the Sparts Irish section.

BOZG

28th June 2007, 00:08

Actually, the entire Irish Anti-War Movement has collapsed underneath the SWP's control. It's not baseless.

And no, the SWP are not like the Sparts. The Sparts don't support social partnership.

BOZG

28th June 2007, 00:11

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 27, 2007 10:53 pm
Interestingly enough, Eamonn McCann was once a member of the Sparts Irish section.
Where did you hear that? McCann was a member of the SWP before they had a group in Ireland.

gilhyle

28th June 2007, 00:11

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+June 27, 2007 10:53 pm--> (PRC-UTE @ June 27, 2007 10:53 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2007 05:44 pm

They will almost never support anything they don't control.

Reminds me of the SWP here in the North.

But the only time I ever ran into the Sparts was at the May Day rally last year, in which they defended paedophilia and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Says it all really. :rolleyes:
Interestingly enough, Eamonn McCann was once a member of the Sparts Irish section. [/b]
I think not.

I suspect what you are referring to is that Eamonn McCann left the Irish branch of the British SWP (then 'International Socialists') with the 'Irish Workers Group' at the time the Irish Workers Group and Workers Power split from them (about 1975, I suspect). But he never joined them.

He went off to edit a sunday tabloid and then went back to the SWP about ten years later. Interestingly he did not (I think) get involved in the Socialist Labour Party 1976-79) in which most of the Irish Trotskyist left and the 'trotskyist' wing of the IRSP (associatied with Bernadette McAliskey) backed Noel Browne and Mat Merrigan in an attempt to build an alternative social democratic party. In effect he abandoned politics for that period.

The IWG ceased to exist in the 1990s and was reconstituted as Workers Power Ireland - but they hardly exist. I think they went with the Permanent Revolution wing inthe recent workers power split. But they were never 'Sparts', although they did have a reputation on the Irish left at one point for similarly aggresive tactics.

There was at one point an irish branch of the Sparts, dont think it still exists.

the only thing I would add about the 'Sparts' is when you have come across them you dont forget. They are happy to intervene at public meetings to the point of disrupting them. They target other left groups, send in undercover agents (no joke !) and try to split them etc.

Generally, if I understand them correctly, this comes from their view that the 'International' must be reconstituted by winning forces from the fragments of trotskyism. Since this cant be done by mergers (probably a fair observation), they conclude it can only be done by very aggresive intervention to win grass roots members of other groups.....this is why they are so hated by most other trotskyists.

PRC-UTE

28th June 2007, 00:16

ah, sorry. I was led to believe he was a member of the Irish Workers Group.

BOZG

28th June 2007, 01:30

The IWG ceased to exist in the 1990s and was reconstituted as Workers Power Ireland - but they hardly exist. I think they went with the Permanent Revolution wing inthe recent workers power split.

Yeah, they went with the PR split. There are also two WP members from Sweden in Dublin at the moment studying but I'm not sure who they split with. I recently got a number of books indirectly from someone who was in the IWG.

There was at one point an irish branch of the Sparts, dont think it still exists.

They still exist but only in Dublin. I'm forever in arguments with them.

BOZG

28th June 2007, 01:34

I just browsed through Wikipedia's article on the IWG which claims that McCann was a member.

The Advent of Anarchy

28th June 2007, 01:38

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27, 2007 06:01 pm
ComradeLosingIt:

You're all Stalinist agents! Even the Sparts are Stalinist agents! EVEN THE SQUIRREL BEHIND YOU IS A STALINIST AGENT! *squirrel with a stalin-esque mouthstache runs up the tree*

Fortunately, the tree is not a Stalinist agent. :lol:

But, on a positive note, it is less wooden than Axel. :D
I have my suspicions about the tree... *suspicious look at the tree*

But seriously, I'm more of a Marxist-Leninist than a Trotskyite. I may be leaning toward 19th century Marxism, but I still refer to myself as either a Leninist or a Marxist-Leninist, or a 20th century Marxist.

FREEDOM! FOREVER!

Spartakus1919

28th June 2007, 01:47

I just wanted to go back to the initial question. Indeed, the Spartakists refer to the current present in Germany during and after the first world war. Their most famous figures are Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknect.

They were the left wing of the SPD before (social-democrats) before WWI. They opposed the imperialistic war and many of them had to be jailed during the conflict.

Rosa Luxemburg, by far its best theoretician, wrote the Junius pamphlet where she makes an analysis of the failure of the Second International.

After the war, they found the Spartakist League. In opposition to Luxemburg's view, this group participated in a uprising in 1919 that was crashed by the SPD governement of the Weimar Republic. Luxemburg, Liebknecht et Jogiches ended up being murdered.

What were their chief tenants ?

1. Even though they supported reforms and work in parlaments, they never forgot that Revolution is the final necessary objectif.

2. They were internationalists, they oppose all wars and nationalism

3. They stand against Leninism. They believe that it is up to the soviets to take the lead of the revolutionnary process and not a so-called "vanguard" party. The party's role is to advise the workers. It ought not to take the lead or impose a dictatorship OVER the workers. Luxemburg opposed the Bolsheviks on many occasions

4. Key words : socialism, freedom and worker's sponteneity

These are the most basic principles. For more info, read Luxemburg's archive : http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/index.htm

Today there are a few Luxemburgists (her ideas are not yet well know, unfortunately). They participate mostly in larger parties and unions. But some people try to organize a network of contacts...

Dr Mindbender

28th June 2007, 01:47

The sparts are highly sectarian. During the elections they were going round telling people not to vote in elections if there was no SLP candidate and even if the BNP were standing. :angry:

Leo

28th June 2007, 02:07

Even though they supported reforms and work in parlaments, they never forgot that Revolution is the final necessary objectif.

I think their position on reformism and parliamentarianism changed following the entrance of capitalism into decadence (which is the key part of Rosa Luxemburg's economical analysis). In the text called What Does the Spartacus League Want? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/12/14.htm), Luxemburg is calling for: "Elimination of all parliaments and municipal councils, and takeover of their functions by workers' and soldiers' councils, and of the latter's committees and organs."

They stand against Leninism.

Well, "Leninism" did not really exist back then. The Spartacus League was not hostile to the Bolsheviks. In The Russian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm), Rosa Luxemburg says: "What is in order is to distinguish the essential from the non-essential, the kernel from the accidental excrescencies in the politics of the Bolsheviks. In the present period, when we face decisive final struggles in all the world, the most important problem of socialism was and is the burning question of our time. It is not a matter of this or that secondary question of tactics, but of the capacity for action of the proletariat, the strength to act, the will to power of socialism as such. In this, Lenin and Trotsky and their friends were the first, those who went ahead as an example to the proletariat of the world; they are still the only ones up to now who can cry with Hutten: "I have dared!"

This is the essential and enduring in Bolshevik policy. In this sense theirs is the immortal historical service of having marched at the head of the international proletariat with the conquest of political power and the practical placing of the problem of the realization of socialism, and of having advanced mightily the settlement of the score between capital and labor in the entire world. In Russia, the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia. And in this sense, the future everywhere belongs to "Bolshevism.""

They believe that it is up to the soviets to take the lead of the revolutionnary process and not a so-called "vanguard" party.

Well, this was what the revolutionary Bolsheviks believed as well, at first, this was what happened it Russia at the beginning and this was why Rosa Luxemburg supported the October Revolution.

Luxemburg opposed the Bolsheviks on many occasions

She criticized them on many occasions, in most of which, especially on the national question, I think she was right.

Today there are a few Luxemburgists (her ideas are not yet well know, unfortunately). They participate mostly in larger parties and unions.

Also, it is important to note that Rosa Luxemburg's position on trade-unions changed too. She says: "[the unions] are no longer workers' organisations; they are the most solid defenders of the state and bourgeois society. Consequently it follows that the struggle for socialisation must entail the struggle to destroy the unions. We are all agreed on this point."

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th June 2007, 11:13

Percy-Cute:

Interestingly enough, Eamonn McCann was once a member of the Sparts Irish section.

I think not.

Where did you get that gem from?

Oops, I have just seen that Gil has answered that one, and rather fully, too! :blush:

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th June 2007, 11:22

BOZG:

Actually, the entire Irish Anti-War Movement has collapsed underneath the SWP's control. It's not baseless.

My comment about 'baselessness' was, if you read what I posted, referring to the UK situation.

I said I could not speak about Ireland.

However, in view of the world-wide collapse of the anti-war movement, I rather suspect the Irish situation has the same cause -- other than the hard core, it is very difficult maintaining such single issue movements at the high level of activity we saw in 2003/4.

Now, unless you have an inflated view of the international influence of the SWP, you can't blame them for that, and hence, unless you have hard evidence, you can't blame them for the same phenomenon in Ireland.

Wanted Man

28th June 2007, 11:38

A Spartacist used to be a German revolutionary. Now, it is a very silly person. I'm glad that they don't exist here.

I had a rather weird run-in with them at Camp Bützow in Germany though, after the G8 demo. There was a panel discussion on anti-imperialism, and at one point, some guy in the audience got his turn to speak. He launched into a rant about how the entire German anti-war movement was taking Kautskyist positions on the imperialist war or something, which was so long, rapid and incoherent that it would be difficult to translate it for the foreign panellists. One of them asked him to make his point, he ignored it and ranted on some more until he got drowned out by sarcastic applause and "thank you"s.

Later that day, they were passing out flyers outside, and it turned out that they were 3 people from the "Spartacus Youth", even though none of them could be described as "youths" - the oldest-looking one must have been at least 55! He kept bugging me about "Lenin's polemic against Kautsky", apparently it was really relevant today.

Now, I don't mind taking some time to argue with comrades, even the really weird kinds, but I got turned off instantly by his insistence on bugging me, while I was visibly busy myself. Why can't they bring their points of view across like normal people?

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th June 2007, 12:34

They think anyone not in their group, but on the left, is the enemy. And progress can only be made if other left groups are smashed -- as Gil pointed out.

[Monty Python could have been written with them in mind!]

LuÃs Henrique

28th June 2007, 12:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 04:31 am
They will almost never support anything they don't control.
They supported the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan - and somehow I doubt they controlled it...

So I would say, they never supported anything they didn't control, unless they were tailing the Soviet Union (now that the Soviet Union no longer exists, what are the poor kids doing?).

Luís Henrique

Amusing Scrotum

28th June 2007, 17:27

You know, I'm lucky enough to have never met a member of the Spartacist League -- at least knowingly. And if I manage to live out the rest of my life without meeting one, I think I'll die slightly disappointed. Because, without a doubt, they seem like (and are) one of the the most bizarre left-wing groups in the world.

Essentially, they're the "Trotskyist" equivalent of the Maoist Internationalist Movement.
_ _ _ _ _

Though, it should be noted that the majority of the lefts objections to their links with NAMBLA, stems from a kind of knee-jerk, socially conservative populism that has no real place on the left.

Originally posted by Luís Henrique
So I would say, they never supported anything they didn't control, unless they were tailing the Soviet Union (now that the Soviet Union no longer exists, what are the poor kids doing?).

Knitting?

You know, something just occurred to me whilst I was reading this comment of yours. This is, given the IMT's relationship with Chavez, could it be that this, combined with their general attitude towards other groups on the left -- Trotskyist groups in particular -- means that the IMT are following in the Spartacist League's footsteps? History repeats itself...

Only time will tell, I suppose. But it's certainly an interesting question, in my opinion.

Wanted Man

28th June 2007, 18:20

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 28, 2007 12:58 pm
(now that the Soviet Union no longer exists, what are the poor kids doing?).
What do you think? Tearing (http://www.icl-fi.org/) themselves (http://www.bolshevik.org/) apart (http://www.internationalist.org/).

Still, I must commend the Sparts for saying 'Down With the Witchhunt Against the "Black Block"!' A marked difference with the IMT, who first condemned (http://www.marxist.com/g8-summit-germany-police-violence070607.htm) violence by the protestors (and lied that they started it), and then published this article (http://www.marxist.com/eyewitness-report-g8-summit-heiligendamm210607.htm) by a woman from the Left Party's youth. Apparently, the democratic socialist Left Party is more radical on this issue than the "revolutionaries" of the IMT. Speaking of which, the glorious revolution in the USA is just around the corner (http://www.marxist.com/perspectives-usa-revolution-2007-introduction.htm)! But then again, I believe that they predict this on a yearly basis.

BOZG

28th June 2007, 19:16

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+June 28, 2007 11:58 am--> (Luís Henrique @ June 28, 2007 11:58 am)
[email protected] 27, 2007 04:31 am
They will almost never support anything they don't control.
They supported the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan - and somehow I doubt they controlled it...

So I would say, they never supported anything they didn't control, unless they were tailing the Soviet Union (now that the Soviet Union no longer exists, what are the poor kids doing?).

Luís Henrique [/b]
He means that they never support left campaigns or broad organisations unless they control them.

BOZG

28th June 2007, 19:19

Originally posted by Dick Dastardly+June 28, 2007 05:20 pm--> (Dick Dastardly @ June 28, 2007 05:20 pm)
Luís [email protected] 28, 2007 12:58 pm
(now that the Soviet Union no longer exists, what are the poor kids doing?).
What do you think? Tearing (http://www.icl-fi.org/) themselves (http://www.bolshevik.org/) apart (http://www.internationalist.org/).

Still, I must commend the Sparts for saying 'Down With the Witchhunt Against the "Black Block"!' A marked difference with the IMT, who first condemned (http://www.marxist.com/g8-summit-germany-police-violence070607.htm) violence by the protestors (and lied that they started it), and then published this article (http://www.marxist.com/eyewitness-report-g8-summit-heiligendamm210607.htm) by a woman from the Left Party's youth. Apparently, the democratic socialist Left Party is more radical on this issue than the "revolutionaries" of the IMT. Speaking of which, the glorious revolution in the USA is just around the corner (http://www.marxist.com/perspectives-usa-revolution-2007-introduction.htm)! But then again, I believe that they predict this on a yearly basis. [/b]
In fairness, the IBT split before the collapse of the Soviet Union. =P

BOZG

28th June 2007, 19:23

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 28, 2007 04:27 pm
Though, it should be noted that the majority of the lefts objections to their links with NAMBLA, stems from a kind of knee-jerk, socially conservative populism that has no real place on the left.
I'd somewhat agree with that comment. Their position on NAMBLA and the age of consent is not some desire of all their members to sleep with children but certainly a desire to break open the chains of human sexuality and far too often, their position is opposed from socially conservative positions. Unfortunately though, their position is incredibly idealistic in terms of consciousness today and even after a socialist revolution which is the real problem. There are huge possiblities in the future of consentual, safe, intergenerational sex with no psychological, abusive or power issues but it's extremely unlikely to occur today though I am aware of it existing in a number of tribes today.

PRC-UTE

28th June 2007, 20:03

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28, 2007 10:13 am
Percy-Cute:

Interestingly enough, Eamonn McCann was once a member of the Sparts Irish section.

I think not.

Where did you get that gem from?

Oops, I have just seen that Gil has answered that one, and rather fully, too! :blush:
BOZG found info on the IWG that suggests I was correct.

ONE IN A ROW! :D

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th June 2007, 21:43

Percy-Cute:

BOZG found info on the IWG that suggests I was correct.

The jury is out on that until he posts it.

One in reserve then! :P

BOZG

28th June 2007, 21:52

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+June 28, 2007 07:03 pm--> (PRC-UTE @ June 28, 2007 07:03 pm)
Rosa [email protected] 28, 2007 10:13 am
Percy-Cute:

Interestingly enough, Eamonn McCann was once a member of the Sparts Irish section.

I think not.

Where did you get that gem from?

Oops, I have just seen that Gil has answered that one, and rather fully, too! :blush:
BOZG found info on the IWG that suggests I was correct.

ONE IN A ROW! :D [/b]
But the IWG was never a section of the Sparts! So Rosa is still correct. The IWG were the Irish section of Workers Power.

Irish Workers' Group on Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Workers_Group)

The last sentence suggests that McCann was a member of the IWG but as it's Wiki, it should be taken with a grain of salt.

BOZG

28th June 2007, 21:55

When did we get this [wiki] tag?

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th June 2007, 21:56

Thanks for that BOZG; I have been following Eammon's career since the early '80's; that's why I knew this was incorrect. Ultra sectarianism (or even the mild variety) just did not gel with what I know of him.

What tag?

BOZG

28th June 2007, 22:01

I went to edit previous post and change the URL but when I went back, instead of finding [url=http://www.....etc], I found that the tag had automatically changed to [*WIKI=Irish Workers Group]Irish Workers' Group on Wiki[/WIKI]. As soon as you post a URL to a wikipedia article, it must automatically change the tag. I tested it out on the thread below by using the [WIKI] tag immediately and it works. I've never noticed it before.

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=17&t=68136

PRC-UTE

28th June 2007, 22:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 08:52 pm
But the IWG was never a section of the Sparts! So Rosa is still correct.
Leave it to me to be factually correct yet still incorrect :lol:

BOZG

28th June 2007, 23:04

Some might say it's typically Irish/ :lol:

gilhyle

28th June 2007, 23:26

While it is off the point of this thread, the Wikipedia article is very confused. There were actually two Irish Workers Groups. The first was established in London in the early 1960s (dont know the date) as an emigre group and broke up in the mid 1960s. McCann may have had links to them, but they had no relationship with the second IWG in the 1970s (except for one overlapping member - I think). I have my doubts that Michael Farrell was ever associated with them. It doesnt fit the time lines.

Some members went back to Ireland and would have worked in the Young Socialists, youth wing of the Labour Party in the late 1960s. I'm not entirely sure of the date, but in 1968 or 69 the Young Socialists got expelled en masse by Labour and members went in various directions to form different Trotskyist groups in Ireland reflecting the fractions of Trotskyism, the League for a Workers Republic, (Lamberrtist) the Irish Branch of the International Socialists (Cliffite), the Revolutionary Marxist Group ( Mandelite) and Militant (which stayed in Labour)

As explained the second IWG then emerged in the mid 1970s with entirely different politics from the first one and no organisational continuity.

The link to the Sparts is still.....zero. Rosa is right. McCann's poltiics are far away from the approach of the sparts.

As to why McCann went with the second IWG, it may be explained by the fact that criticism of the International Socialists position on the Aldershot bombings was central to the split. The International Socialist papers were very critical of those who planted the bombs,while the WP/IWG position was for unconditional support for anti-imperialist struggles.

While McCann has always been critical of the IRA, the level of criticism doled out by the International Socialists at that time may just have been too much for him. But I speculate.