What's the Spartacist League up to these days?

[RebelSpart]

They haven't published WV since May 2020. The Americans have written only 2 leaflets since then (and called them supplements). They were completely silent throughout the BLM protests. They've translated the leaflets into several languages to make it appear as though they are a functioning organisation. Apart from that the Greeks have produced a couple of leaflets as have the Canadians. In the last 5 or 6 months there's been nothing at all. Looks like it's over, but they still have to sort out who gets the cash from the properties - New York office building and Robertson's Bay Area retirement home.

What you say jibes with what I have read on the net. I doubt Robertson had significant holdings and even if a house bought in the 1970s or 80s appreciated massively, it wouldn't change much members. All that brings me back to the reason why I asked about their leadership. I knew George 'Crawford' before we became Sparts and we met George 'Foster' and Judy shortly thereafter. I remember my friend Victor and his very young (at the time) sister Irene who became a PC member. I wonder what these people have or will do with their lives now. Above all, I am so glad I broke from them, which is probably the hardest thing I ever did besides divorcing my first French wife. LOL

 

[kebabking]

What you say jibes with what I have read on the net. I doubt Robertson had significant holdings and even if a house bought in the 1970s or 80s appreciated massively, it wouldn't change much members. All that brings me back to the reason why I asked about their leadership. I knew George 'Crawford' before we became Sparts and we met George 'Foster' and Judy shortly thereafter. I remember my friend Victor and his very young (at the time) sister Irene who became a PC member. I wonder what these people have or will do with their lives now. Above all, I am so glad I broke from them, which is probably the hardest thing I ever did besides divorcing my first French wife. LOL

I've long been interested in 'afterwards', what people do when the thing their lives once revolved around disappears - I was a member (for about 2 weeks) of the Socialist Workers Student Society, some of the people I knew haven't touched politics since uni, but one bloke is still hammering away for the comrades 20+ years later.

Are these Sparts now members of parish councils and photography clubs, or are they like the impoverished and swept away Grand Duchesses and Serene Highnesses of long forgotten and exiled European royal houses, meeting in shabby hotels in Paris and bestowing Orders on each other and imagining themselves to be stil rulers of their kingdoms, many of which no longr exist?

 

[Carl Steele]

What you say jibes with what I have read on the net. I doubt Robertson had significant holdings and even if a house bought in the 1970s or 80s appreciated massively, it wouldn't change much members. All that brings me back to the reason why I asked about their leadership. I knew George 'Crawford' before we became Sparts and we met George 'Foster' and Judy shortly thereafter. I remember my friend Victor and his very young (at the time) sister Irene who became a PC member. I wonder what these people have or will do with their lives now. Above all, I am so glad I broke from them, which is probably the hardest thing I ever did besides divorcing my first French wife. LOL

According to Tom Riley's Bolshevik Tendency (there are now two BTs) there was a levy on the membership to buy Robertson an expensive house in the Bay Area (I think in the 90s). Also they own the New York Office building, so the money at stake is not insignificant. I'm not assuming they want to divide it up among the membership. Whoever is the leadership will get the spoils.

By Judy do you mean Judith Shapiro? (her membership of the Sparts is well known)

When did you leave, and what prompted you to do so?

 

[RebelSpart]

According to Tom Riley's Bolshevik Tendency (there are now two BTs) there was a levy on the membership to buy Robertson an expensive house in the Bay Area (I think in the 90s). Also they own the New York Office building, so the money at stake is not insignificant. I'm not assuming they want to divide it up among the membership. Whoever is the leadership will get the spoils.

By Judy do you mean Judith Shapiro? (her membership of the Sparts is well known)

When did you leave, and what prompted you to do so?

We always called Ms Shapiro 'Judith' and I still do. She is the main reason I stayed as long as I did. A brilliant woman and a decent person. She is now doing great work as a lecturer at LSE. By 'Judy', I was referring to George Foster's wife.

 

[RebelSpart]

I've long been interested in 'afterwards', what people do when the thing their lives once revolved around disappears - I was a member (for about 2 weeks) of the Socialist Workers Student Society, some of the people I knew haven't touched politics since uni, but one bloke is still hammering away for the comrades 20+ years later.

Are these Sparts now members of parish councils and photography clubs, or are they like the impoverished and swept away Grand Duchesses and Serene Highnesses of long forgotten and exiled European royal houses, meeting in shabby hotels in Paris and bestowing Orders on each other and imagining themselves to be stil rulers of their kingdoms, many of which no longr exist?

I, along with a number of my high school friends, joined the SL pretty much at the same time. One guy became a transit worker and took up a hobby as a photographer and amateur video-maker. Another HS friend became an interpreter and lives in France as I do. Al Benson, who just passed away, did all sorts of things and spent years helping fellow gays and working on AIDS projects. Another continued as a HS teacher in Boston. My friend, Victor and Irene G. (brother and sister) are another story. Victor died a few years ago. I actually came across him the streets of NYC 30 years ago. He had apparently left the SL but was still 'loyal', so he refused to talk to me. Too bad because we had been best friends before joining the SL. Irene remained a leading SLer (PC member). She became politicized at the age of 13. She entered politics with a child-like naivety and religious devotion that recalled her family's Orthodox Russian roots. All these people were highly talented and could've done great things; instead they devoted their lives to what they viewed as a socialist future.

 

[Carl Steele]

All these people were highly talented and could've done great things; instead they devoted their lives to what they viewed as a socialist future.

I agree there were some highly talented/intelligent people in the Sparts, who could have done something else. So why do you think they were there?

To believe that Robertson's group was the last, best hope for humanity you had to be profoundly mistaken about how the world works.

 

[RebelSpart]

I agree there were some highly talented/intelligent people in the Sparts, who could have done something else. So why do you think they were there?

To believe that Robertson's group was the last, best hope for humanity you had to be profoundly mistaken about how the world works.

In answer to your questions: 1) Many people were drawn to leftwing groups in the 1970s (leftwing meaning communist, trotskyist). I was attracted because of a terrible experience I had in my teenage years, first in juvenile hall and later in a so-called state-authorized boys home. I wanted, at once, to give a huge middle finger to the elites and their many supporters, but also Marx's vision made sense to me; 2) others had different reasons, but the intellectual luminaries like Carl Lichtenstein and Judith sincerely believe the socialism was the only way and that the SL had the best, if not the only chance of getting us there.
BTW, I regret joining the SL but I am in no way ashamed of it. People in other political parties display much of the same sort of behavior and thinking. Millions of people today, more than ever in my lifetime, are opting for conspiracy-based or -laced political positions. Just look at the trumpthings but also the self-styled progressives who emphasize domestic politics to the near total exclusion of foreign policy where the elites do their most damange. Just look at all the phony proclamations for ecology from people who don't think twice before buying a new high-energy consuming device or going on a holiday cruise ship that emits more CO2 in a single day than most cities do in a week. Are not these people also "mistaken about how the world works"?

 

[Carl Steele]

I can understand, or even identify with, your reasons for joining the Sparts, though in contrast to you I do feel ashamed of having been a member of Robertson's organisation for a number of years. Had I gone in, taken a look and got out, it would be different. But I stayed.

the intellectual luminaries like Carl Lichtenstein and Judith sincerely believe the socialism was the only way and that the SL had the best, if not the only chance of getting us there.

This I find impossible to accept. They no doubt told themselves this, but the idea that the Sparts could lead a working class revolution was beyond ridiculous. Of course many people believe ridiculous ideas, but there are reasons why people deny climate change or the efficacy of vaccinations which go beyond simple belief.

 

[RebelSpart]

I can understand, or even identify with, your reasons for joining the Sparts, though in contrast to you I do feel ashamed of having been a member of Robertson's organisation for a number of years. Had I gone in, taken a look and got out, it would be different. But I stayed.



This I find impossible to accept. They no doubt told themselves this, but the idea that the Sparts could lead a working class revolution was beyond ridiculous. Of course many people believe ridiculous ideas, but there are reasons why people deny climate change or the efficacy of vaccinations which go beyond simple belief.

Let me take up your last point first. The Sparts did not think that they were capable of leading a working class revolution at the time I was there (1971-1975) and probably not beyond my time, either. What they thought is that they needed to develop a party to lead the working class to power at some distant point in time, and they did not see anyone else doing it. They just did not see the working class in pre-revolutionary ferment, so they concentrated on winning over members of what they called OROs by exposing them for their supposed deviations from marxism. Not a bad strategy insofar as that goes, but the OROs correctly saw them as posturing, like when they went to antiwar demos with huge banners calling "Communist victory in Indochina!". I remember when I came on board as a 21-year-old in September 1971. I called Robertson to complain about stickers members had plastered all over Cambridge and Boston on which a whole laundry list of evils that the SL opposed was listed. No explanation, just denunciation. I tried to explain to Jim that that was not the way to persuade someone, but he cut me off, screaming that I took a piecemeal approach to politics, which was counterrevolutionary, but that I was welcome to carry out a faction fight on the CC, if I so desired. Needless to say, I was shell schocked.
This last point brings me to your first point, because I wanted to just walk away from Robertson and his followers right then and there. I did not do so because I was just too young, too confused and already too dependent on them. Even though I thought I was on a road to nowhere, I also had nowhere else to go. My bet is that a lot of people felt the same way. Let's just be happy that we got out when we did. When were you in the SL?

 

[Carl Steele]

Let me take up your last point first. The Sparts did not think that they were capable of leading a working class revolution at the time I was there (1971-1975) and probably not beyond my time, either. What they thought is that they needed to develop a party to lead the working class to power at some distant point in time, and they did not see anyone else doing it.

I think the perspective on when the revolution was coming shifted. I'm fairly sure there was a period in the 1970s when the Sparts thought the collapse of US capitalism was imminent and greatness would be thrust upon them. In the 1980s they talked incessantly about the imminence of WWIII. And they did see themselves as the direct (and only) descendants of Lenin. So sometimes they lamented not having much time to build the revolutionary party and at other times they postured as merely the latest link in the chain of revolutionary continuity.

I remember when I came on board as a 21-year-old in September 1971. I called Robertson to complain about stickers members had plastered all over Cambridge and Boston on which a whole laundry list of evils that the SL opposed was listed. No explanation, just denunciation. I tried to explain to Jim that that was not the way to persuade someone, but he cut me off, screaming that I took a piecemeal approach to politics, which was counterrevolutionary, but that I was welcome to carry out a faction fight on the CC, if I so desired.

I'm trying to understand how you reconcile the above statement with this ...

the intellectual luminaries like Carl Lichtenstein and Judith sincerely believe the socialism was the only way and that the SL had the best, if not the only chance of getting us there.

Why do you think the reasons the "intellectual luminaries" joined the SL were more rational than your own? I think anyone who made a clear-eyed assessment of the Sparts and Robertson wouldn't have touched them with the proverbial ten foot pole. Why would anyone believe that a ranting and raving alcoholic could play a pivotal role in bringing about socialism?

And btw I was in the Sparts in the 1980s. I left in 1986.

 

[RebelSpart]

I think the perspective on when the revolution was coming shifted. I'm fairly sure there was a period in the 1970s when the Sparts thought the collapse of US capitalism was imminent and greatness would be thrust upon them. In the 1980s they talked incessantly about the imminence of WWIII. And they did see themselves as the direct (and only) descendants of Lenin. So sometimes they lamented not having much time to build the revolutionary party and at other times they postured as merely the latest link in the chain of revolutionary continuity.



I'm trying to understand how you reconcile the above statement with this ...



Why do you think the reasons the "intellectual luminaries" joined the SL were more rational than your own? I think anyone who made a clear-eyed assessment of the Sparts and Robertson wouldn't have touched them with the proverbial ten foot pole. Why would anyone believe that a ranting and raving alcoholic could play a pivotal role in bringing about socialism?

And btw I was in the Sparts in the 1980s. I left in 1986.

Carl, I was there in the early 1970s when our group met Robertson and the entire SL leadership as well a number of other trotskyist leaders. Our group also held talks with Tim Wohlworth of the WL. It was Wohlworth's WL and his British pupper master, Gerry Healy, who screamed day and night about the imminent collapse of capitalism, not the SL leadership. My bet is that you can verify this yourself by checking out the headlines of the WL's newspaper.
Both the SL and our group considered such claims of an imminent crisis and thus uprising to be ridiculous. Above all, it was precisely because the US was very far from being in a pre-revolutionary period (let alone a revolutionary one), that they stuck with their view that their only role could be as a "propaganda" group (educate people about marxism).
As for my intellectual luminaries comment, I never said that their reasons were better than mine. I said they were good people, but that does not mean their "reasons" for being in the SL were in any way better than mine!
As for Robertson's alcoholism, many great people were alcoholics, drug addicts or had some other major health or even psychological issue. That said, no one within the SL saw him a "great helmsman" or a new Lenin; that is the sort of BS we hear from people outside the org, not within it. He was a deeply flawed individual, as were all the left's top leaders at the time, but some of his opponents are way off track!

 

[Carl Steele]

I didn't say the Sparts "screamed day and night about the imminent collapse of capitalism" but their perspective did shift and change. I clearly recall Robertson talking about the possibility of "explosive growth" in the membership of the organisation, and WV frequently claimed we lived in a world "hurtling towards WWIII" as a consequence of the anti-Soviet war drive. I remember Len Meyers addressing a group of contacts after a demonstration, urging them to join the Sparts because "we need a revolution and we don't have much time." I'm fairly sure the "we don't much time" line came from a 1970s analysis of the US economy, but I'd have to dig to find that.

I am aware of Healy's catastrophism.

Describing the Sparts propaganda group perspective as educating people about Marxism is a bit wide of the mark. It mostly meant denouncing and sometimes slandering other leftists.

As for Robertson's alcoholism, many great people were alcoholics, drug addicts or had some other major health or even psychological issue. That said, no one within the SL saw him a "great helmsman" or a new Lenin; that is the sort of BS we hear from people outside the org, not within it. He was a deeply flawed individual, as were all the left's top leaders at the time, but some of his opponents are way off track!

Robertson was a small time operator, and the Spartacist League was his organisation. He drove out anyone who challenged him. He ran a highly abusive regime. His alcoholism was the least of it.

As for my intellectual luminaries comment, I never said that their reasons were better than mine. I said they were good people, but that does not mean their "reasons" for being in the SL were in any way better than mine!

I think you did imply that their reasons were better than yours, but whatever. Do you think anyone joined the Sparts for purely/mostly political reasons?

Were you a member of Norden's group?

 

[RebelSpart]

If you say the SL's perspective changed in the 1980s, I will withhold comment since I was already gone by mid-1975. Yes, propaganda group for the SL mainly consisted of recruiting from and/or splitting other OROs. They were into 'exposing' them. I never had any problem ripping away 'cadre' from the PLP or other OROs, but their methods produced exactly the opposite of what the SL leadership claimed they wanted.
I remember one time we planned an intervention during the speech of the Swedish ambassador to Chile who had sheltered thousands of political refugees in his embassy during the coup d'état in 1972. They guy was old, fragile and a hero to everyone. He is the last guy in the world you want to attack or pick on.
Well, a week earlier, our Chicago org attacked him for being a social democrat and thus sellout. In planning our action in SF/Bau Area, the local leadership chose me to infiltrate his group and present him with a demand that he announce our demo in front of the Chilean embassy a few days after the diplomat's speech at Stanford Univ. But knowing my comrades and the utter lack of political sensitivity of our local organizer (Paul, a former coast guard officer with zero political acumen), I asked for assurrances that we would not attack him. Paul and Tweet (the local political chair) stated flat out that our intervention would entail no attacks on him.
On the night of his speech, I was able to get by his guards and speak with the ambassador who was accompanied by Joan Baez. Joan was pissed at the SL for "disrupting" the ambassador's presentation in Chicago but I promised there would be no such disruption that night. I even praised the ambassador's actions in Chile and told him we held him in great esteem, even if we did not see eye-to-eye with him politically. So our demo was announced after his speech, but when it came time for questions from the audience, Paul was chosen first and he launched a seemingly endless series of nasty comments about Sweden, the social democrats and revisionism in general. Other comrades joined in. I was furious because I had given my word of 'honor.
When I brought the matter up during the next local meeting a few days later, I was met with total silence from the comrades, including Tweet, Paul, his companion Rosalyn, etc. So I called Paul and the entire leadership liars, including Tweet, to which they responded I had a 'bourgeois' attachment to truth. We had several rounds of discussion but I was the only one to bring up the lies and sneaky manoeuvring. I am sure people knew I was right, but everyone, besides Paul, just ignored me. It was not much longer after that incident that I moved to the LA where I resigned (by telephone).
Ok, time to wrap (sorry for the length). Over the years, I have come to believe that the slavish attitude of SL members was typical of many political movements, including mainstream parties. We see it in the GOP under Trump. We saw it in the Democratic Party under Hillary "bomb, bomb, bomb Iraq" Clinton. I've seen the same slavishness from political hacks in Spain, too, where I lived several years. As one of Trump's White House press chiefs said a few years ago, people see "alternative facts". Robertson, like Bob Avakian, Wohlforth and others never worked a day in his life. His entire political career, which began in the CP before traversing the SWP and eventually forming the SL, was based on faction fighting. So it is no surprise that he ended up being a big fish in a small fish bowl.

 

[Carl Steele]

That's an interesting story, a good illustration of how the Sparts were both oblivious and indifferent to the impact they had. Being "correct" was everything. The line about your bourgeois attachment to truth made me laugh. Pity you couldn't have met Joan Baez under better circumstances

I think the sycophancy in the Sparts is somewhat different to the slavish attitude in other political groups or movements. I was a member of Tony Cliff's International Socialists, and while there was no shortage of hackery and group-think the Sparts treatment of one another was far worse, and the detachment from reality was at another level.

 

[RebelSpart]

That's an interesting story, a good illustration of how the Sparts were both oblivious and indifferent to the impact they had. Being "correct" was everything. The line about your bourgeois attachment to truth made me laugh. Pity you couldn't have met Joan Baez under better circumstances

I think the sycophancy in the Sparts is somewhat different to the slavish attitude in other political groups or movements. I was a member of Tony Cliff's International Socialists, and while there was no shortage of hackery and group-think the Sparts treatment of one another was far worse, and the detachment from reality was at another level.

You are surely right, group-think is a common problem and not just in politics, but the Sparts were in a class unto themselves. One thing that prepared me for them is a little study or review of the utopian socialists of the mid-19th century BEFORE I entered politics. My main takeaway from my amateurish research (age 18) was that the utopian communities that last longest were the ones where the discipline was strictest and the hardship greatest. The SL, like many other leninist groups excluding IS, which I don't view as leninist in any sense (not a criticism), played up the political and police attacks against them, and any old congressional hick from Louisiana woud do. As long as the SL was considered a threat to national security, the leadership would use the criticism to show members that they truly were on the right track. They relied heavily on guilt, but that worked less with someone like me, since, while not working class, I had a tough youth. Hard enough that Robertson volunteerred to sink me into the industrial working class when he met our group (CWC) for merger talks in the summer of 1971. He said this kid (me) is tough enough to withstand a harsh work environment and still fight for his beliefs. (I also turned out to be their number one "goon" in cases where they risked being attacked.)
After working for a while in the shipyards of Quincy, MA and later in an auto factory, I noticed that the leadership and academic members began calling us workers the "aristocracy" of the nascent proletarian party. It is true we brought home more money, even after paying a 30% stipend on our pay checks. Still, I thought I would gladly swap my working class wages for a chance to go to university.
Befoe I left but long after I made clear my desire to leave, the comrades who always had affluent parents to cover their back called me a traitor to the working class, which made me laugh. My dear friend Carl and Alice were among that group and they actually convinced my girlfriend to break up with me at that crucial time in my life. The same girlfriend who had urged me to resign!
As it turns out, I dodged two bullets for the price of one!

 

[RebelSpart]

Carl, I would also like to learn more about your experience in the SL You revealed an interesting point when you said Robertson spoke of the US hurtling toward WWIII. If he really thought that, his analysis of the world situation had seriously deteriorated. You surely have other things to say about your experience.
Funny, but many of the financial analysts with whom I work (as a translator) argued that capitalism was on the verge of collapse following the abrupt bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the resultant market crash (worse than in 1929) and the ensuing financial and economic crisis. Who would've imagined GWB pushing the US treasury to take majority and/or controlling capital stakes in 9 out of the 10 biggest American banks? Imagine what would've happened if he had stuck to his free market orthodoxy!

 

[tim]

You'll never leave

And never be admitted to the leadership clique.

 

[RebelSpart]

I've long been interested in 'afterwards', what people do when the thing their lives once revolved around disappears - I was a member (for about 2 weeks) of the Socialist Workers Student Society, some of the people I knew haven't touched politics since uni, but one bloke is still hammering away for the comrades 20+ years later.

Are these Sparts now members of parish councils and photography clubs, or are they like the impoverished and swept away Grand Duchesses and Serene Highnesses of long forgotten and exiled European royal houses, meeting in shabby hotels in Paris and bestowing Orders on each other and imagining themselves to be stil rulers of their kingdoms, many of which no longr exist?

I, like you, am interested in finding out what people, especially the leadership, do after they leave an ostensibly revolutionary organization. I know one CC member of the SL who returned to a highly prestigious school where she serves as a senior lecturer. A guy, who stayed at the NYC subway authority where he started out as a SL plant and union militant, ended up as an amateur, but quite accomplished photographer. He also went to Yeshiva and become a practicing Jew. He denounces zionism but refuses to criticize Israel. He participates in a lot of Jewish-oriented events where Israeli flags can be seen everywhere. Most of the people become non political and uninterested in anything remotely resembling social, ecological or current events. That is the most interesting point for me: none of these people were really political animals.

 

[Carl Steele]

Carl, I would also like to learn more about your experience in the SL You revealed an interesting point when you said Robertson spoke of the US hurtling toward WWIII. If he really thought that, his analysis of the world situation had seriously deteriorated. You surely have other things to say about your experience.

I'm happy to exchange experiences with you, and I do have some some questions for you. Let me think about what I want to say and ask. I'm tired now but I'll get back to you tomorrow. But just on the WWIII point here's a WV article from 1983: WV323

It was just taken as a given that the US was preparing to nuke the Soviet Union.

 

[deeyo]

I remember one time we planned an intervention during the speech of the Swedish ambassador to Chile who had sheltered thousands of political refugees in his embassy during the coup d'état in 1972. They guy was old, fragile and a hero to everyone. He is the last guy in the world you want to attack or pick on.
Well, a week earlier, our Chicago org attacked him for being a social democrat and thus sellout. In planning our action in SF/Bau Area, the local leadership chose me to infiltrate his group and present him with a demand that he announce our demo in front of the Chilean embassy a few days after the diplomat's speech at Stanford Univ.

that would have been harald edelstam, 'the black pimpernel' of ww2 - aristocrat gone socialist diplomat, saviour of communists, jews & dissidents in nazi berlin, occupied norway, stalinist poland, indonesia, guatemala & chile.
he dined with ss-officers in his home while hiding resistance fighters in the basement. dodged two assasination attempts by the gestapo, he smuggled torture victims in the trunk of his car.

he fought hand-to-hand with fascist soldiers to stop them to take mirtha fernandez de pucurull from her hospital bed & only gave up when they put a submachine gun to his head.

to this day, swedish- chileans put flowers on his grave each year. he's on a stamp in uruguay.

and you guys attacked him?

interesting strategy.

not many latinos in the american sparts in the 70s then, i take it?

Harald Edelstam | Edelstam Institute

edelstaminstitute.org

 

[RebelSpart]

that would have been harald edelstam, 'the black pimpernel' of ww2 - aristocrat gone socialist diplomat, saviour of communists, jews & dissidents in nazi berlin, occupied norway, stalinist poland, indonesia, guatemala & chile.
he dined with ss-officers in his home while hiding resistance fighters in the basement. dodged two assasination attempts by the gestapo, he smuggled torture victims in the trunk of his car.

he fought hand-to-hand with fascist soldiers to stop them to take mirtha fernandez de pucurull from her hospital bed & only gave up when they put a submachine gun to his head.

to this day, swedish- chileans put flowers on his grave each year. he's on a stamp in uruguay.

and you guys attacked him?

interesting strategy.

not many latinos in the american sparts in the 70s then, i take it?

Harald Edelstam | Edelstam Institute

edelstaminstitute.org

View attachment 293171View attachment 293174

View attachment 293175

Let me correct my earlier remarks. The SLers didn't actually attack the ambassador but attacked Allende for his popular front strategy. They went on to attack the social democrats and others they considered insufficiently marxist. The ambassador, understandably, took it very bad, as did the crowd. After all, he was not there to debate the best strategy for a socialist revolution but to speak on the evils of the coup d'état and the regime that followed. The SL had its own agenda, which is fair enough, but their diatribe against Allende was off-topic for nearly everyone there, although, to my surprise, some people approached us and said the crowd's reaction was unfair. The SL also drew a fairly good turnout for their demo before the Chilean embassy a few days later, so they might've picked up a few contacts. But they also angered a whole lot of people and they used me to lie to Mr Edelman and Ms Baez.

 

[Carl Steele]

Most of the people become non political and uninterested in anything remotely resembling social, ecological or current events. That is the most interesting point for me: none of these people were really political animals.

I had a exchange recently on a blog with James Creegan (ex Spart, ex BT) where I argued that trying to understand the Sparts as a political group is futile. And what you say here is an illustration of my point. There were a lot of people who were clearly apolitical even while they were in the group - the ones who always shouted about discipline and betrayal but had never read a book. I first started to think about this a few years after I left. I was talking to a friend (an ex-Spart who had been a member around the same time as me) in 1989. I asked him what he thought about the fall of the Berlin Wall, he said something like "I haven't really been following it." This is a guy who spent years in an organisation which never stopped shouting about the defence of the Soviet Union. When the Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed he just wasn't interested.

I think the beginning of wisdom as to what's going on here is to be found in Geoff White's 1968 resignation letter from the Sparts - Geoff White Resignation (you'll find the letter on page 9 after the interview, with a response from Robertson). The Sparts were a purist sect, being correct was the objective, they had little desire to engage with let alone affect the world. This isn't the whole story but it's an important part.

Of course there are those who don't drop out, but continue, like Tom Riley's BT and Jan Norden's IG. I don't know much about the IG but if you look at their journal they are the Sparts of the mid-1970's preserved in aspic - the banners, placards, slogans, articles are identical. Not surprising given who's running the group.

I suppose you knew Norden. What was your impression of him?

 

[RebelSpart]

I had a exchange recently on a blog with James Creegan (ex Spart, ex BT) where I argued that trying to understand the Sparts as a political group is futile. And what you say here is an illustration of my point. There were a lot of people who were clearly apolitical even while they were in the group - the ones who always shouted about discipline and betrayal but had never read a book. I first started to think about this a few years after I left. I was talking to a friend (an ex-Spart who had been a member around the same time as me) in 1989. I asked him what he thought about the fall of the Berlin Wall, he said something like "I haven't really been following it." This is a guy who spent years in an organisation which never stopped shouting about the defence of the Soviet Union. When the Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed he just wasn't interested.

I think the beginning of wisdom as to what's going on here is to be found in Geoff White's 1968 resignation letter from the Sparts - Geoff White Resignation (you'll find the letter on page 9 after the interview, with a response from Robertson). The Sparts were a purist sect, being correct was the objective, they had little desire to engage with let alone affect the world. This isn't the whole story but it's an important part.

Of course there are those who don't drop out, but continue, like Tom Riley's BT and Jan Norden's IG. I don't know much about the IG but if you look at their journal they are the Sparts of the mid-1970's preserved in aspic - the banners, placards, slogans, articles are identical. Not surprising given who's running the group.

I suppose you knew Norden. What was your impression of him?

Yes, I knew the entire Buffalo Marxist Collective of which Norden was a part. I was the guy Robertson sent to begin talks with them. I spent 12 hours almost nonstop talking with a group of about 30 people. People were semi-hostile but they showed interest and even attraction to the arguments I presented. It was only later that I got a real feeling for Norden. He was distant, disciplined and knowledgeable. I considered him to be productive but boring.
I cannot generalize about all Sparts, anymore than I could for PLPers, excpet to say that all the militants from leninist orgs were sectarian. One thing that is different between me and you is your IS background. I always liked the ISers, but they were almost too nice whereas the leninist were angry. At the time, I didn't care if I lived or died; I just wanted to live or die for a good cause. All the hard leninists I knew, including the SWPers, had many of the characteristics we see in the SLers. They wanted to make a revolution and killing lots of people was not an issue for them ... or for me. We rejected terrorism because we saw it as totally counterproductive and a huge distraction (we are talking about targeted political actions, not mass murder a la ISIS). Their differences revolved around the best way to create a mass revolutionary party sometime in the future. The SWPers took a more practical and more inclusive approach whereas the PLP and the SL took a more sectarian one, but they were all sects.
PS: Did you see my response to Deeyo (above), I retracted/revised part of what I said about the SL interventions against the Swedish ambassador to Sweden in 1972. They did not directly criticize the former ambassador; they attacked Allende and the various OROs who remained uncriticial of him.

 

[Carl Steele]

The SL was certainly a very angry place, and it would be foolish to discount how important this was as an attractive and repellent quality. Many people were in the Sparts because it was a place where they could scream and shout and be well thought of.

Thanks for the comments on Norden. I'm curious about him because he seems to be someone who embraced the Sparts project literally - in a way I don't think Robertson did. For Robertson the politics were a means of controlling his organisation (rather than a means to intervene in the world). So, for example, the WWIII stuff had no impact on the work of the Sparts. They sold a newspaper which claimed the US was about to nuke the Soviet Union but continued on with the same plodding, propagandistic routines. The feverish articles did though have an impact on the internal life, ramping up the intensity, fuelling the guilt, making the membership more malleable. Robertson was all about preserving and controlling the organisation to maintain his lifestyle. But I get the impression Norden believed it all, the revolutionary continuity bullshit and all the rest, as evidenced by his recreation of the 1970s organisation.

I'm also curious about the aftermath of the CWC fusion, the subsequent faction fight (know as the Cunningham/Treiger/Moore fight in Spart mythology). It's decades since I read about this on my favourite ever Trotskyist website, Revolution and Truth, a political tendency of one person, now sadly defunct. I seem to recall an account claiming that Robertson and friends fished through the trash cans at the end of meetings looking for the notes discarded by their opponents, and then later quoted the notes to denounce them. What was going on? I think this happened about a year after the glorious fusion.

And I believe Marv Treiger is now a why-I-left-the-left conservative and part time Buddhist (for those interested in what happens in the hereafter).

 

[RebelSpart]

Marv was the leader of the CWC group of which I was a member. This collective consisted of Marv, two other gentlemen of about 25-28, two women about the same age and about ten former Hollywood High students who turned hard left after forming their own SDS chapter on campus in 1970. I was part of this latter group.
Crucial to understanding our group and thus our merger with the SL is that we were far removed from the SL's operations in other cities. We only came face-to-face with them in the early summer of 1971 via a woman named Helene (or Elaine, not sure) and her then disgraced boyfriend Doug Hainline. Doug was a very easygoing guy and highly persuasive. Anyway, we fused with the SL based on talks with Helene and Doug and, soon thereafter, Jim Robertson.
A few months later, we all moved to our respective SL local areas. I went to Boston and Marv went to NYC, since he sat on the PC. Within days of my arrival in Boston, I objected to the local leadership's "propaganda" (mentioned in an earlier post here). The local leadership suggested I give Jim a ring, which I did. Jim exploded on me after a couple of minutes of what I considered mild exchanges. His attitude was so brutal that I was left speechless. I thought of calling Marv, but that would've been a violation of "democratic centralism" and I did not want to start off my membership in that way. Little did I know that Treiger was also having problems with Robertson, and he did not want to contact us for the same reasons. Later, I realized that Robertson had no problem with potentially torpedoing the entire merger with the CWC. His aggressivity was just breathtaking.
As for the "faction" fight, Marvin opted out almost rightaway. He just abandoned us to our fate, which is pretty cowardly, considering that many of us were barely adults. I didn't see it that way at the time. I hooked up with him years after quitting the SL, but he never even considered apologizing for leaving us in the cold. He later decided his family at birth (before he was put up for adoption as a kid) was Jewish so he declared himself Jewish. He became a Zionist at which he told me I should make copious and public apologies to just about anyone I ever knew or would meet in the future.
Marv is a charismatic individual and he works hard on maintaining his charisma. But he turned out to be the most vile opportunist I have ever had the misfortune of knowing.
Cunningham had a bit of a so-called faction fight but none of us members knew anything about it until it was over and he was long gone. That was just one of the wonders of 'democratic centralism'!

 

[Carl Steele]

Wow! Very interesting. Earlier today I read the WV account of the "fusion" and how it was an historical step forward for the SL Also, in my argument with Jim Creegan, he cited this as an example of the success of the regroupment strategy. And then there's the reality. And it's also interesting because the BT narrative has this period, early to mid 70s as the "healthy" period of the Spartacist League, when it was super-revolutionary, and had a well-functioning regime. I have never accepted this narrative because it makes no sense. A fundamentally healthy organisation could not have deteriorated into what I saw in 1980 in a few years (also I had read bits and pieces which indicated the early 70s SL was as you describe).

I knew Helene Brosius, I'm not sure if she was in the SWP but she was a Spart from very early on. She was generally quite pleasant company, but an absolute, unquestioning loyalist. Doug of course I also knew. In Britain in the late 70s/early 80s he and Judith were the human face of Spartacism. He seemed like a fish out of water, like he didn't really belong, he was just too reasonable. Helene once joked that Doug was really good at talking to members of opponent groups, he could always figure out what they were thinking ... because he was thinking the same thing. But oddly Doug was a part of the Logan regime in the UK, as was Judith, and Logan really was the worst of the worst. I joined a year or two after the Logan trial (which was a stitch up because Robertson was fully aware of Logan's abuses) but I met Logan a couple of times - he really gave me the creeps, just way too cool and self-controlled.

 

[RebelSpart]

Wow! Very interesting. Earlier today I read the WV account of the "fusion" and how it was an historical step forward for the SL Also, in my argument with Jim Creegan, he cited this as an example of the success of the regroupment strategy. And then there's the reality. And it's also interesting because the BT narrative has this period, early to mid 70s as the "healthy" period of the Spartacist League, when it was super-revolutionary, and had a well-functioning regime. I have never accepted this narrative because it makes no sense. A fundamentally healthy organisation could not have deteriorated into what I saw in 1980 in a few years (also I had read bits and pieces which indicated the early 70s SL was as you describe).

I knew Helene Brosius, I'm not sure if she was in the SWP but she was a Spart from very early on. She was generally quite pleasant company, but an absolute, unquestioning loyalist. Doug of course I also knew. In Britain in the late 70s/early 80s he and Judith were the human face of Spartacism. He seemed like a fish out of water, like he didn't really belong, he was just too reasonable. Helene once joked that Doug was really good at talking to members of opponent groups, he could always figure out what they were thinking ... because he was thinking the same thing. But oddly Doug was a part of the Logan regime in the UK, as was Judith, and Logan really was the worst of the worst. I joined a year or two after the Logan trial (which was a stitch up because Robertson was fully aware of Logan's abuses) but I met Logan a couple of times - he really gave me the creeps, just way too cool and self-controlled.I

 

[RebelSpart]

Please keep in mind that my comments reflect only my (necessarily) subjective perspective as a 21-year-old kid who already had misgivings about the SL before even joining. As a CWC member, I was one of two people (the other being George R. who disappeared before we joined the SL) pushing a trotskyist line in a collective based on stalinist/maoist thinking. But the move to the SL was too quick for me and when I and CWC comrade, Lynn M., saw the Sparts at a SF antiwar rally with their ridiculous "All Indochine must go communist!" banner, we said to ourselves they looked pathetic. I planned on asking my CWC comrades to slow down the fusion process, but a security issue arose with one of our members, James, who turned out to be spying on us for the Mike Klonsky-led group with whom we had been close but who remained maoists. The incidence cancelled my plans for bringing up a matter that was sure to go over like a lead balloon among my comrades, anyway.
But here is the thing, Carl. All the other comrades integrated very well into the SL, so the fusion was indeed a smashing success from the SL's standpoint. George 'Crawford' became a leading member as did (in time) Irene G. (Victor G.'s little sister who converted to leninism at 13). The reason I was selected to make the first contact with the Buffalo Marxist Collective was my experience within the CWC winning people over to trotskyism. Robertson viewed me as a young Doug Hainline, which I didn't realize was a huge compliment at the time, given his fall from grace. The entire BWC fused with the SL several months later.
The end result was that the SL and the newly formed RCY grew four-fold in a matter of two or three years, although they never exceeded a couple hundred members. BTW, the SL's first black comrades came from the CWC. These were guys I met in the early days of the CWC. Again, I take no credit for their recruitment, which goes to the black individuals themselves. But it is just one more case of the CWC fueling the SL's growth in a good way.
I still wish I had never joined the SL or had left it within the first year, but, Carl, if I (and perhaps you) were there, it was for a reason. Maybe we had some issues to work out. We survived the experience and moved forward in our lives, which is a lot better than many people, in or out of politics.

 

[Carl Steele]

Robertson's death was one of the events which made me review my experience in the Sparts (the other was a police report which indicated there was a cop infiltrator in the organisation at the time I was a member). There was very little reaction to Robertson's passing but those who did comment said something like "he was a lovable lunatic who did some crazy stuff but also made a contribution to Trotskyism." I wanted to set the record straight insofar as I could, and consequently got caught up in a lengthy exchange with a couple of Robertson apologists. I think Robertson lived off the people he abused and used politics to intimidate and shame his victims. There's little more to the story than that (although that is quite a lot!) A point I've made a few times is that Robertson collectivised the abuse, everybody got to participate in denouncing the victims, and so everybody was implicated. Those who defend Robertson are actually defending themselves, trying to find something noble in the shit.

But as you say, we (and many others no doubt), were there for a reason. My experience in the Sparts taught me a lot about myself (and people in general) - though a good therapist would have been cheaper.

 

[RebelSpart]

Wow! Very interesting. Earlier today I read the WV account of the "fusion" and how it was an historical step forward for the SL Also, in my argument with Jim Creegan, he cited this as an example of the success of the regroupment strategy. And then there's the reality. And it's also interesting because the BT narrative has this period, early to mid 70s as the "healthy" period of the Spartacist League, when it was super-revolutionary, and had a well-functioning regime. I have never accepted this narrative because it makes no sense. A fundamentally healthy organisation could not have deteriorated into what I saw in 1980 in a few years (also I had read bits and pieces which indicated the early 70s SL was as you describe).

I knew Helene Brosius, I'm not sure if she was in the SWP but she was a Spart from very early on. She was generally quite pleasant company, but an absolute, unquestioning loyalist. Doug of course I also knew. In Britain in the late 70s/early 80s he and Judith were the human face of Spartacism. He seemed like a fish out of water, like he didn't really belong, he was just too reasonable. Helene once joked that Doug was really good at talking to members of opponent groups, he could always figure out what they were thinking ... because he was thinking the same thing. But oddly Doug was a part of the Logan regime in the UK, as was Judith, and Logan really was the worst of the worst. I joined a year or two after the Logan trial (which was a stitch up because Robertson was fully aware of Logan's abuses) but I met Logan a couple of times - he really gave me the creeps, just way too cool and self-controlled.

Re-reading your posts, I see I skipped over many interesting things. Who was Logan? Was that his first or last name? I vaguely remember a guy from New Zealand (who I think was called Logan but am not sure). The New Zealander was also an expert in aikido. I didn't realize Judith was a part of any regime in the UK, but that makes sense since she is now well established there. Although involved in good economic development work, she doesn't seem to care that boyfriend Doug Hainline had become a neocon and virulent anti-communist.
And yes, I see that many of my former comrades simply lost interest in world events. This is not the same thing as dropping out of politics. We can drop out of politics because we see no one presenting solutions that have any chance of success but still be concerned about the real environmental, ethnic and other problems around us. Then there are people like Treiger and Hainline who seem to view politics as a way of inflating their ego and possibly raking it some cash at the same time.
Among my L.A. friends (mainly from high school and the CWC), I tried contacting Susan S. but, if the person I contacted is the same one I knew in the 70s, she seems to have fashioned an entirely knew persona. She never responded to two very polite, non-intrusive messages. My old buddy Larry says he hates zionists but refuses to talk politics with them and doesn't want anyone to know his opinions (i.e. Spartacist). Al Benson, who just died, remained an orthodox Spart until he passed away two weeks ago, except that he hated Muslims and Palestinians. Another comrade, Bruce M., whom I used to count among my friends at Hollywood High, never responded to my messages to him. Ditto for Phil. I've lost contact with Lynn (dear friend of Susan S.). I ran into Martin Perlich in Venice Beach around 1979, the radio announcer from Cleveland who, after quitting the SL relaunched what turned out to be a very successful career. He had lied to the SL leadership, claiming, after I resigned, that I was selling marijuana. He replied that he had to lie, which was legitimate because he was a revolutionary. You can still check him out on FB.
Anyway, I just can't imagine the remaining leadership making it in the real world. I like George Foster a lot. He has a Ph'd in physics, but he has surely forgot 95% of what he learned some 50 years ago. My ears still ring as I recall the voice of his wife, Judy, telling me that the SL was my only home because I couldn't make it anywhere else. I remember my former CWC comrade, George C., saying the same thing to wit I responded that their comments only increased my desire to leave what appeared more and more like a sect (the lessons of the utopian socialists coming to mind).