The third article from the top, published one month ago, called "Leninism vs. The New Social Democracy" discusses Syriza in its first two paragraphs, setting it within the context of criticizing leftist illusions in rebuilding social democracy, often through forming popular front coalitions. You would have known this if you had read the article. Not even read them, really. All you have to do is perform a simple google search, and you'll see that Syriza has been the focus of a considerable portion of the IBT's material over the past year. In this years 1917, there is a lengthy article about Syriza, which people can read at
http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no37/i...ng_crisis.html
Now, it's true that the front page of the site isn't jam-packed with articles covering a broad range of news stories currently on the front pages. That's a reflection of the group's size, which you seem hung up.
"Dissing the Spartacists" as in making political criticisms, or gossiping? There's a difference, I hope you realize.
Oh, so it is a political criticism and not mud-slinging gossip. You just don't like it because they criticize a group you like. Yet you insist that it is supporters of the IBT who are part of a "cult." Interesting.
What makes this exceedingly ironic is that, if you peruse the Orthodox Trotskyist social group and the forum posts of the people who belong to it, the only person among us who seems dead-set on inserting attacks against a specific group into a disproportionate percentage of his participation here is...well, you. I get along quite well with the other "orthodox trotskyists" on the forum, regardless of their affiliation, and don't feel the need to condemn them as centrists anytime a discussion about a specific point of Trotskyist politics comes up. I think I criticized the ICL one time in my 100+ posts, and only then it was in response to your earlier claim insisting that the ICL's position on Corbyn was no different than the IBT's, but that the IBT wanted to make it appear otherwise out of obsessive hatred. In real life, because of my political sympathies, I am usually called a "Spart" despite it being technically incorrect. I don't correct people, because I see no point in distancing myself from a tradition that I largely want to uphold. On a similar note, I see no need to go on a constant warpath against the ICL folks (or IG folks, who also seem to be a constant target of yours), just as ICL or IG sympathizers - you being the lone exception - see the need to go on a warpath against me or any other supporter of a group claiming to uphold the Spartacist tradition.
"Sucking up"? And what, precisely, is the political content of this characterization? It can mean anything from "How dare they agree to even talk to them?" to "They are refusing to bring up any disagreements and are saying only positive things about them!" So, let's get political and move away from the boring subpolitical characterizations: what do you mean by the phrase?
At a meeting attended by many leftists besides people affiliated with Platypus, an IBT supporter said that Platypus exists as a result of a "fundamentally mistaken" assessment of "the Leninist-Trotskyist tradition." The crux of the talk was a criticism of various academically-oriented or social-democracy-oriented ways of trying to build a revolutionary movement. Platypus was one of the
targets.
This, in your view, is "sucking up" to them and trying to enlist them. I suppose the latter part is right. The IBT does try to engage people who disagree with them, while pulling no political punches, in order to win them over to the correct program. I suppose the alternative to this is sealing themselves off in a defeatist and abstentionist position.
I thought they were engaging ("sucking up to") the "Platypoids" in hopes of "enlisting" them. That doesn't sound "insular" to me. You're constructing so many attacks at this point that they are beginning to contradict one another.