kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
I suppose if loads of massive disasters had gone a bit better it would have been marvellous. It shows the depths of their analysis that in 2021 they feel justified to vomit forth such tripe.
What's the Spartacist League up to these days?
- Thread starter Idris2002
- Start date
I suppose if loads of massive disasters had gone a bit better it would have been marvellous. It shows the depths of their analysis that in 2021 they feel justified to vomit forth such tripe.
Carl Steele
Well-Known Member
I think this is a game, I'm not sure how much he believes of what he says. He's a pro-capitalist liberal, why is he defending the 1970s Sparts?
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
Well of course it would. Had the Iraqis, in their great majority, both sects, taken advantage of the chance to establish something like a decent society, with the Americans and British paying the price, that would have been wonderful..
The Japanese did. The Germans did. But in the Islamic world, it's not going to happen. Too bad.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Go on. Because...
Carl Steele
Well-Known Member
It's such a pity Doug, to come across you in your dotage spouting such reactionary garbage. The Sparts were bad enough, but this is worse. I have a recollection of you as a basically decent person, but this along with your apologies for your good buddy Logan tells me I was wrong.
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
Political movements and the people in them are not monoliths.
People bring their personal character into the movements they join, and this character was formed years before they became political.
There are admirable people in every part of the political spectrum ... well, maybe not among Nazis by definition, but I would guess that even there you would find, or have found when National Socialism wa sa mass movement -- people who were simply nasty little opportunists, and also people who were 'ideailistic' nationalists ... having the same attitude towards their nation that internationalists have towards humanity as a whole.
Similarly, we can find things to admire in many movements with which we are in strong disagreement ('disagreement' is too mild a word but it's the best I can do now).
For example, the Communist Party USA during the 1930s: they were the propagandists for totalitarianism, cheered the Moscow trials, were happy when the American Trotskyists
were indicted under the Smith Act. At the same time, they stood up for and fought hard for Black rights, and worked hard to organize workers into unions.
Liberals in the US are now, hypocrtitically, playing the "Patriot" card, as they call Confederates 'traitors', and extend the same appelation to Trump supporters. These are people
who, until now, couldn't pronoune 'patriot' without a patronizing sneer.
So I point out to my fellow right-wingers the kind of patriot these people really like: namely, the Soviet spy Ethyl Rosenberg, celebtated by the New York City Council a few years ago.
However, what motivated this woman? Was she yearning to see Americans sent to Alaskan uranium mines, those that escaped the firing squads? She helped Stalin get the atomic bomb
years earlier than he would have. Did she really hope to see mushroom clouds over America? No ... she grew up in circumstances which made her anti-capitalist -- quite understandable -- and she
believed the Soviet Union was a great victory for socialism. She dedicated her life -- and finally gave it (when she didn't have to) -- for its preservation.
In other words, her motives were not base. They were in fact admirable. A huge tragedy that people like her were pulled into supporting a totalitarian movement.
It's not a new idea. Although he wasn't directly praising Rommel's morality, Churchill did pay him the compliment, in the House of Commons, of calling him "Across the havoc of war, a great general".
[Okay, Churchill may have had an ulterior motive, letting the non-Nazi German senior commanders know that they would not be seen and treated as genuine Nazis would be.]
And speaking of Churchill -- is his statue still there outside the House of Commons? -- a couple of years after the Cuban Revolution, when it was still in its uplift phase, a new bookstore
was opened in Havana, and Castro gave a speech at the opening ceremony. After the speech, a young red-hot revolutionary in the audience asked, "Comrade Fidel, why does this
bookstore stock works by Winston Churchill ... a notorious imperialist?" Castro's reply: "If it wasn't for Winston Churchill, you wouldn't be here."
Those who are literate who are reading this will recall the tribute Shakespeare has Antony' make to Brutus:
ANTONY
Of course, the ability to discern admirable qualities even in one's deadly enemies is not given to everyone.
Macaulay recounts the case of a Scottish rebel against James II, who was captured, sentenced to death, and brought before James.
The King asked the condemned man, "Why do you not ask me for mercy? You know it is within my power to grant it."
The man replied, "Aye, it is within your power ... but it is not within your nature."
For some people, it's just not within their nature.
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
I don't know who you are, but I must say I have formed an equally bad impression of your character.
And by the way, there are plenty of people like you on the Right, I am sorry to say.
Cheers.
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
Well, it may happen ... productive forces develop, base determines superstructure and all that ... but it's going to take a lot longer than Fukayama and I thought.
Same in Russia and China. Things aren't linear, etc.
So, yes, "and yet, it moves."
Carl Steele
Well-Known Member
But I do know who you are Doug, and I know who Logan is, and I know why he is your friend, because you were and are just like him. A guy who tried to force a young woman not to take medicine that could prevent a miscarriage, a guy who tried to force a young woman to give up her baby. And he's your friend, has been for a lifetime.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
Noted that the noncery angle has not been resolved.
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
By the way, I don't think that 'invading Aghanistan was great'. It was a huge blunder .. both times. And the Soviets invaded to support a more moderate faction of the radical Afghans who were trying to drag their wretched country into the 20th Century.
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
Yes, he's my friend. And not at all the person you, and the Spartacists, say he is. And the Spartacists were entirely on board with trying to persuade her to have an abortion.
Please spare us your faux-indignation.
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
What is "noncery"?
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
I will ask her, but I don't think she will want to.
After we left, we both had "Spartacist Dreams", ie nightmares. Robertson feared Judith, because her IQ (in the fourth Standard Deviation) matched his, and she knew something about economics,
which he didn't. During the Logan Purge, he called her "human garbage". He was a master of human psychology -- knew all your weaknesses, inner doubts, fears, vulnerabilities.
Carl Steele
Well-Known Member
Yes, Robertson was no better than Logan and neither are you.
Is there anything you care about?
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
I'm not sure what you're asking, but I've always thought that Bertrand Russell expressed my feelings exactly, when he wrote that
“Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.”
Carl Steele
Well-Known Member
Excellent, so since you are here let me ask you to comment on what was done to Vicki.
For those who don't know, Vicki was a young woman member of the Spartacist League of Australia and New Zealand. I think she was in her early twenties. She became pregnant towards the end of 1971. Her doctor advised her that she may well have a miscarriage and gave her medication to prevent this happening. Bill Logan and Adaire Hannah (leaders of the SL/ANZ) and David (Vicki's husband and member of the SL/ANZ) pressured Vicki not to take the medication because they wanted her to have a miscarriage.
There's more to the story but this vignette is enough to capture what was going on. I wonder Doug what you think of this behaviour. I wonder what you think it says about the people involved.
And yes, Robertson did know about this long before the Logan show trial - but that doesn't change what happened does it?
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
Okay, a fair question.
But first, can we agree that Logan was NOT purged because of this incident?
He was purged because Robertson feared him as a rival. This incident was just dredged up and used against him, just as various things Trotsky had said or done during the War Communism/Civil War period,
things which went to the edge of and perhaps crossed over the boundaries of good judgement, were later used against him.
I therefore never thought deeply about the Vicky issue, so I'm going to think out loud here -- and maybe change my mind in the light of any good arguments anyone else puts forth.
This case is rather like the Roman Polansky and the 13 year old girl -- easy to be demagogic about it, but in fact, more complex than it might seem on the surface. (Not that demagogues care about that.)
So here are my thoughts: when you join a revolutionary organization, it's not like joining the Labour Party or a chess club.
You dedicate your life to it ... because the goal is worth it, and requires it. This means you are willing to pick up and move to the other side of the world if the organization requires it; you give up going to grad school and get a job in a car factory if the organization requires it; you literally give it -- or we did -- half your disposable income . (I saw someoneearlier in this thread specualted that Marv Treiger and I did something wanted to "rake in some extra cash" ... I had to laugh out loud at that shallow ignoramus -- in the SL, the cash was raked out of you. But no doubt that person just assumes others have the same motivations and morality that he does.)
And, given the premises on which you joined -- the world faced a choice between socialism or barbarism, and the success of your organization was required to get socialism -- all this made sense.
Yes, the premises were wrong, but if you accepted them, all else followed. If you were serious.
Now, as general background, let me say that the SL did NOT do what the Workers League did: run its members into the ground while dangling the prospect of imminent revolution before them.
Maybe it did after I left, when its internal life was changing for the worse, but while I was in, although our committment was total, this was not abused.
Robertson knew the importance of pacing yourself, of taking a break from time to time. It's just good sense, nor a moral issue.
And, although having children was definitely a serious obstacle to revolutionary activity, and we all knew that, I never saw anyone directly pressured not to have them.
In fact, I recall Robertson once joking that when women reached the age of 30, they conceived "an irresistable urge to try out their biological machinery."
If others experienced something different, I didn't know about it. Again, that's just good sense.
Better to have a comrade with children, than no comrade with children, or a comrade who is full of suppressed resentment at having to remain childless.
So with Vicky, I would have to know: did she really really want a child? Or was this an accident, and she was ambiguous about it? If she really really wanted a child, and was pressured to kill the one she was
developing, than, to steal a line from Talleyrand, it was worse than a crime, it was a blunder.
I suppose they would have used arguments like, you're being selfish in wanting to bring one child into the world, whereas you should be thinking about the tens of millions of children all over the world
growing up in abject poverty, which it is our job to abolish via the revolution. Those are your children. The attempt to make abstract reason conquer biological imperatives. .
But if it was a blunder, it was one done out of an excess of zeal.
My experience of Bill and Adaire was that they ran a fair regime, rather more open than the Robertson regime. (I recall that they were once criticized by Robertson because in their internal discussions,
the leadership, ie Bill and Adaire, always spoke last -- in order not to unduly sway the more junior members from thinking through issues for themselves, even if they got it wrong.
Whereas Robertson said this was not leadership ... the leaders should speak first. I think Bill and Adaire were right on this one.)
However, there is one thing that puzzles me. Where I hang out -- via the internet, not physically -- the good people believe that human life begins at conception, and that therefore abortion is murder.
Once that sperm embeds in the egg, that's a human being.
Whereas you, who I assume are on the Left, don't see things that way. For you, the fetus is just a clump of cells, and you would have no qualms about killing it up until some rather late period in its development.
So for you, surely, the issue of Vicky would be analogous to someone who had spent years developing a really long beard of which he was very fond -- only to have the Party (as we called ourselves) decide that it was putting the workers we were trying to reach off, making him look like an eccentric, and that therefore he should cut it off, and 'pressuring' him to do so.
Or have the people who make a big deal of this case, perhaps unconsciously, absorbed some of the 'pro-life' attitudes so common on the other side of the Atlantic-- Bill and Adaire, murderers of the innocent unborn.
And I detect possibly another American influence. Bill was from a solid middle-class family -- his father was a doctor, I believe -- and he himself was the national chairman of the equivalent of the Young Conservatives in New Zealand. He projected a thoroughly upper class British demeanor. (Kiwis are notorious for being more English than the English, some of them. Supposedly, unlike Aussies, they still think of this island as 'home'.)
This can rub some Americans the wrong way -- it certainly did so to Robertson. If you're an American, dealing with someone like Bill, you can feel slightly patronized, slightly looked down upon. I never felt that way, but I can see how others might.
All I can say is that I always found both Bill and Adaire to be very decent human beings. Adaire in particular was one of the most transparent and honest people I have ever met. I don't think she was even capable of dissembling, or saying something she didn't believe.
But first, can we agree that Logan was NOT purged because of this incident?
He was purged because Robertson feared him as a rival. This incident was just dredged up and used against him, just as various things Trotsky had said or done during the War Communism/Civil War period,
things which went to the edge of and perhaps crossed over the boundaries of good judgement, were later used against him.
I therefore never thought deeply about the Vicky issue, so I'm going to think out loud here -- and maybe change my mind in the light of any good arguments anyone else puts forth.
This case is rather like the Roman Polansky and the 13 year old girl -- easy to be demagogic about it, but in fact, more complex than it might seem on the surface. (Not that demagogues care about that.)
So here are my thoughts: when you join a revolutionary organization, it's not like joining the Labour Party or a chess club.
You dedicate your life to it ... because the goal is worth it, and requires it. This means you are willing to pick up and move to the other side of the world if the organization requires it; you give up going to grad school and get a job in a car factory if the organization requires it; you literally give it -- or we did -- half your disposable income . (I saw someoneearlier in this thread specualted that Marv Treiger and I did something wanted to "rake in some extra cash" ... I had to laugh out loud at that shallow ignoramus -- in the SL, the cash was raked out of you. But no doubt that person just assumes others have the same motivations and morality that he does.)
And, given the premises on which you joined -- the world faced a choice between socialism or barbarism, and the success of your organization was required to get socialism -- all this made sense.
Yes, the premises were wrong, but if you accepted them, all else followed. If you were serious.
Now, as general background, let me say that the SL did NOT do what the Workers League did: run its members into the ground while dangling the prospect of imminent revolution before them.
Maybe it did after I left, when its internal life was changing for the worse, but while I was in, although our committment was total, this was not abused.
Robertson knew the importance of pacing yourself, of taking a break from time to time. It's just good sense, nor a moral issue.
And, although having children was definitely a serious obstacle to revolutionary activity, and we all knew that, I never saw anyone directly pressured not to have them.
In fact, I recall Robertson once joking that when women reached the age of 30, they conceived "an irresistable urge to try out their biological machinery."
If others experienced something different, I didn't know about it. Again, that's just good sense.
Better to have a comrade with children, than no comrade with children, or a comrade who is full of suppressed resentment at having to remain childless.
So with Vicky, I would have to know: did she really really want a child? Or was this an accident, and she was ambiguous about it? If she really really wanted a child, and was pressured to kill the one she was
developing, than, to steal a line from Talleyrand, it was worse than a crime, it was a blunder.
I suppose they would have used arguments like, you're being selfish in wanting to bring one child into the world, whereas you should be thinking about the tens of millions of children all over the world
growing up in abject poverty, which it is our job to abolish via the revolution. Those are your children. The attempt to make abstract reason conquer biological imperatives. .
But if it was a blunder, it was one done out of an excess of zeal.
My experience of Bill and Adaire was that they ran a fair regime, rather more open than the Robertson regime. (I recall that they were once criticized by Robertson because in their internal discussions,
the leadership, ie Bill and Adaire, always spoke last -- in order not to unduly sway the more junior members from thinking through issues for themselves, even if they got it wrong.
Whereas Robertson said this was not leadership ... the leaders should speak first. I think Bill and Adaire were right on this one.)
However, there is one thing that puzzles me. Where I hang out -- via the internet, not physically -- the good people believe that human life begins at conception, and that therefore abortion is murder.
Once that sperm embeds in the egg, that's a human being.
Whereas you, who I assume are on the Left, don't see things that way. For you, the fetus is just a clump of cells, and you would have no qualms about killing it up until some rather late period in its development.
So for you, surely, the issue of Vicky would be analogous to someone who had spent years developing a really long beard of which he was very fond -- only to have the Party (as we called ourselves) decide that it was putting the workers we were trying to reach off, making him look like an eccentric, and that therefore he should cut it off, and 'pressuring' him to do so.
Or have the people who make a big deal of this case, perhaps unconsciously, absorbed some of the 'pro-life' attitudes so common on the other side of the Atlantic-- Bill and Adaire, murderers of the innocent unborn.
And I detect possibly another American influence. Bill was from a solid middle-class family -- his father was a doctor, I believe -- and he himself was the national chairman of the equivalent of the Young Conservatives in New Zealand. He projected a thoroughly upper class British demeanor. (Kiwis are notorious for being more English than the English, some of them. Supposedly, unlike Aussies, they still think of this island as 'home'.)
This can rub some Americans the wrong way -- it certainly did so to Robertson. If you're an American, dealing with someone like Bill, you can feel slightly patronized, slightly looked down upon. I never felt that way, but I can see how others might.
All I can say is that I always found both Bill and Adaire to be very decent human beings. Adaire in particular was one of the most transparent and honest people I have ever met. I don't think she was even capable of dissembling, or saying something she didn't believe.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
No, the question would be ‘wtf does it have to do with anyone other than Vicky?’
You’ve proven yourself a thoroughly nasty piece of work very quickly and easily.
nogojones
spelling is overrated
What would you consider the complexities are in the Roman Polansky case?
Carl Steele
Well-Known Member
Why Logan was purged is your issue not mine. I don't really care, but for what it's worth he was probably purged because Robertson viewed him as a threat.
Mind boggling!!!
The issue is very simple, whether or not to have a child is Vicky's decision, as belboid pointed out. It's nothing to do with Bill and Adaire or David.
The idea that the SL/ANZ was a revolutionary organisation, and the fate of the revolution depended on what a dozen students, teachers and office workers did, was demented, and the behaviour that flowed from this delusion was, in the case of Vicky, cruel and ghoulish. They wanted her to have a miscarriage so she'd be free for the Saturday morning paper sale.
Again, they wanted her to have a miscarriage, at the very least a traumatic event, possibly life-threatening, and you compare this to a man cutting off a beard!!!
Vicky did have the baby, then they tried to get her to put it up for adoption. She initially agreed and as the date approached for the baby to be taken from her she became suicidal. She was hospitalised following the attempt. This was all orchestrated by your good buddy Bill. And you've never thought deeply about it. Or thought about it at all, apparently.
VirulentNeoCon
... and yet, it moves.
If you join an organization whose aim is to lead a revolution, you have to make some choices. There are things you can no longer do, and things you will have to do that you wouldn't ordinarily do -- like selling newspapers at 5am to the departing night shift at the local factory. To take a big leap upwards, Trotsky escaped from Siberia, leaving his wife and children behind. (She was a revolutionary and was okay with that, or at least so she said.) You expose your loved ones to retribution -- Trotsky's son may have been murdered by the GPU in Paris.
I suppose some people can't really understand this, because they cannot transcend their own egos. Thus the idea of sacrifcing something they want for a cause greater than their own self-gratification is entirely alien to them. If they join a revolutionary organization for a while, it's just the equivalent of taking a vacation in an exotic location.
And then of course there are people whose personality type seems to be entirely at odds with the noble aim they profess. I forget the Bolshevik leader he was speaking about, but I recall Trotsky saying of one of them, that he had a 'dirty personality'.
Having a child definitely cuts across being able to be active as a professional revolutionary. Of course, if the aim of the small revolutionary group is achieved and it becomes a big revolutinary group -- a mass party -- then it will necessarily incorporate many people with children, and the question becomes less acute.
However, it's a powerful urge, and it would not be wise to pressure someone who clearly wants a child, not to have it.
If Bill and Adaire did this, and I accept that they did, it was very bad judgement on their part, and if outside the boundaries of what the SL did generally, it was not far from them.
From my experience in the Spartacist League, I can say that there were some people who did bad things, but with good motivations. Being abusive was not in their natural character -- when they were, it was because they thought this was how you had to act as a revolutionary.
But there were others for whom abuse came naturally. They positively enjoyed raking an erring comrade over the coals.
Usually these were the less political, and less intelligent, members, getting their own back on people who were 'above' them in the organization.
Nothing I know about Bill and Adaire, having worked with them for a couple of very intense years, makes me think that they are in the latter category.
As for the child sex question: a favorite trope among people on the Right is that Mohammed was a paedophile, because he married a nine-year old girl. The age at which someone could get married in much of the American South, where I come from, used to be 12. One of the tragedies of the inability of either the USSR or the USA to bring civilization to AFghanistan, is that very young girls are going to be forced into 'marriages' with barbarians -- as we see it.
Cultures vary, and some are -- from the point of view of human dignity -- better than others, a proposition we on the Right uphold and you on the post-Marxist Left generally do not.
Personally, I despise Polansky, as I do many of his pals in Hollywood who defended him. (And I was happy to see the good Kyle RIttenhouse rid the earth of a very nasty paedophile, although of course I suppose you will mourn at the thinning of your ranks. ) I thought Katha Pollit of the leftwing Nation magazine said all that needs to be said about him and his case. [ Roman Polanski Has a Lot of Friends ] What she writes shows the falseness of the Spartacist position at the time, which was essentially that the sex was consensual.
Of course, people on the Left have to be careful when they pretend to get indignant about paedophilia, because the natural direction of motion of the post-Marxist Left is to legitimize it, something that began back in the 1960s, retreated for a while in the 90s, and is now making a comeback. [For example, PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange, was an accepted part of the leftist Liberty group, something that has caused embarrassment to certain people today. [ Calls for legal child sex rebound on luminaries of May 68 ] [How did the pro-paedophile group PIE exist openly for 10 years? ]
[ How much longer can paedophilia apologists stay silent? ]
The issue is clouded by the sizable lunatic conspiracy theorist element of the American Right, who throw insane accusations of child sex-trafficking around with no concern at all for the truth, and by the attempts of others on the Right to demonize liberal psychologists who make what seems to me a very reasonable distinction between people who are sexually attracted to children, but do not act on their desires, and those who do, under the assumption that this attraction is not something under their voluntary control.
So we could have a good discussion on this issue, and if I thought I were dealing with honest people, I would.
But I'm not, so I won't.
I suppose some people can't really understand this, because they cannot transcend their own egos. Thus the idea of sacrifcing something they want for a cause greater than their own self-gratification is entirely alien to them. If they join a revolutionary organization for a while, it's just the equivalent of taking a vacation in an exotic location.
And then of course there are people whose personality type seems to be entirely at odds with the noble aim they profess. I forget the Bolshevik leader he was speaking about, but I recall Trotsky saying of one of them, that he had a 'dirty personality'.
Having a child definitely cuts across being able to be active as a professional revolutionary. Of course, if the aim of the small revolutionary group is achieved and it becomes a big revolutinary group -- a mass party -- then it will necessarily incorporate many people with children, and the question becomes less acute.
However, it's a powerful urge, and it would not be wise to pressure someone who clearly wants a child, not to have it.
If Bill and Adaire did this, and I accept that they did, it was very bad judgement on their part, and if outside the boundaries of what the SL did generally, it was not far from them.
From my experience in the Spartacist League, I can say that there were some people who did bad things, but with good motivations. Being abusive was not in their natural character -- when they were, it was because they thought this was how you had to act as a revolutionary.
But there were others for whom abuse came naturally. They positively enjoyed raking an erring comrade over the coals.
Usually these were the less political, and less intelligent, members, getting their own back on people who were 'above' them in the organization.
Nothing I know about Bill and Adaire, having worked with them for a couple of very intense years, makes me think that they are in the latter category.
As for the child sex question: a favorite trope among people on the Right is that Mohammed was a paedophile, because he married a nine-year old girl. The age at which someone could get married in much of the American South, where I come from, used to be 12. One of the tragedies of the inability of either the USSR or the USA to bring civilization to AFghanistan, is that very young girls are going to be forced into 'marriages' with barbarians -- as we see it.
Cultures vary, and some are -- from the point of view of human dignity -- better than others, a proposition we on the Right uphold and you on the post-Marxist Left generally do not.
Personally, I despise Polansky, as I do many of his pals in Hollywood who defended him. (And I was happy to see the good Kyle RIttenhouse rid the earth of a very nasty paedophile, although of course I suppose you will mourn at the thinning of your ranks. ) I thought Katha Pollit of the leftwing Nation magazine said all that needs to be said about him and his case. [ Roman Polanski Has a Lot of Friends ] What she writes shows the falseness of the Spartacist position at the time, which was essentially that the sex was consensual.
Of course, people on the Left have to be careful when they pretend to get indignant about paedophilia, because the natural direction of motion of the post-Marxist Left is to legitimize it, something that began back in the 1960s, retreated for a while in the 90s, and is now making a comeback. [For example, PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange, was an accepted part of the leftist Liberty group, something that has caused embarrassment to certain people today. [ Calls for legal child sex rebound on luminaries of May 68 ] [How did the pro-paedophile group PIE exist openly for 10 years? ]
[ How much longer can paedophilia apologists stay silent? ]
The issue is clouded by the sizable lunatic conspiracy theorist element of the American Right, who throw insane accusations of child sex-trafficking around with no concern at all for the truth, and by the attempts of others on the Right to demonize liberal psychologists who make what seems to me a very reasonable distinction between people who are sexually attracted to children, but do not act on their desires, and those who do, under the assumption that this attraction is not something under their voluntary control.
So we could have a good discussion on this issue, and if I thought I were dealing with honest people, I would.
But I'm not, so I won't.
Carl Steele
Well-Known Member
Well, I think he's gone. That was stunning and disturbing. Doug was the human face of Spartacism in the UK in the 1970s (along with Judith)
What I notice most about almost all the ex-Sparts I've encountered online is their numb indifference to the suffering of others, and their need to maintain a completely deluded account of their "revolutionary" past, because as we've just heard, if you're working for the revolution you may make mistakes but you'll never do anything morally wrong.
What I notice most about almost all the ex-Sparts I've encountered online is their numb indifference to the suffering of others, and their need to maintain a completely deluded account of their "revolutionary" past, because as we've just heard, if you're working for the revolution you may make mistakes but you'll never do anything morally wrong.
JimW
支那暗杀团
I'm actually in agreement with the broad thrust of how you start, but if you're not spotting the difference between the febrile years of a gathering revolutionary storm and a world to win and some student types flogging papers in stolid solid social democracies then the ego issue is who on earth you think you are
Similar threads
