So you repudiated your support for the Logans. Why was this not seen as genuine and what did Robertson do to you?
It was probably seen as not genuine because, subconsciously, it wasn't.
Here's an analogy, going from the farcical to the tragic: The Bolshevik Party began as a genuine revolutionary organization. After the last convuslive twith of the failed German revolution -- an
attempted insurrection n Hamburg, against the Communist Party's wishes, it was clear to the politicized people in the USSR that their country would be isolated for an indefinite, but not short, period. This ws the signal for the consolidation of a conservative, cautious bueaucracy in that country, led by Stalin. (Ex-Spartacists reading this will know all about it.)
But there were still Bolsheviks who adhered to the original outlook of the Party: hold on, and encourage revolution in Europe. They became known as the Left Opposition. However, when world capitalism underwent a profound crisis in 1929, Stalin mechanically ordered the Comintern into a 'Left turn' -- the so-called Third Period.
The Left Opposition hadn't got anywhere, Stalin seemed to be projecting a revolutionary course ... so many Left Opposition supporters 'capitulated' and became supporters of the regime -- which they no doubt saw as deeply flawed, but still revolutionary, contra to the predictions of the Left Opposition that the bureaucracy would restore capitalism. (And this belief was no doubt consolidated when
Stalin made the internal turn towards forced industrialization, 'building socialism'. )
Were their conversions 'sincere'? Yes and no. If you're a genuine revolutionary, you put the welfare of the revolution, and of the Party that will lead it, ahead of your own personal feelings.
Anyway, all these people ended up being shot in the great Purge that came a few years later. Stalin didn't trust them, and he was right not to do so.
In my own case, after the nightmare of the Logan trial -- the worst period of my life -- I was only a half-hearted member. Perhaps that was obvious. I was coming to the conclusion that there were only two things that would justify continued membership of the SL: If it had a healthy internal life, one could remain a member, waiting for the objective circumstances to change. Or, if it had an unhealthy internal life, but still had the capacity to intervene in an outside world that presented a chance for the revolutionary forces to grow, that would justify remaining.
But neither was true. I recall an incident that consolidated my view that the SL was beyond hope: the IMG had been vociferous supporters of the mullah's seizure of power in Iran. (One of their leaders travelled there during the early period of mullah rule, and when he retunred and gave public lectures about how wonderful things were, he proudly showed his 'Khomeini Card', some sort of pro-regime token that its supporters had.)
Then came the inevitable repression, with Iranian Trotskyists being imprisoned and threatened with with execution. The SL mounted a campaign of sorts in their defense ... but in its own sectarian way.
Anyway, we were outside an IMG meeting of some sort, possibly for IMG members only, handing out leaflelts about the situation in Iran. Everyone going into the meeting ignored us .. except for one fellow. He took a leaflet, and stopped to argue with us ... genially.
Paydirt! Three or four of us clustered around him .And then, after a minute or two, he said something -- I forget what, exactly -- and one of our members -- an ex-soldier -- suddenly and without warning screamed in his ear.
He just shook his head, broke off the conversation, and went into the meeting. I knew then that we were doomed. We had had a chance to present our case on Iran to someone who was willing to listen and discuss ... and we blew it.
Now, I didn't make a conscious decision to resign. All this was cumulative. Quantity had not yet turned into quality. It took another incident ... I think someone has mentioned it already ... where I was censured for arguing with a kid who said, I think just to wind me up, "I support the National Front myself."
There is a passage in the excellent biography of Margaret Thatcher, by Claire Berlinsky, in which she interviews a group of former coal miners: they all express the leftist sentiments you would expect. And then one of them says, something to the effect that he has found an organization which really cares about the working class ... the National Front. It's a startlement, but -- as I think someone in a previous post pointed out -- this is not uncommon in the working class, even among people who had supported Leftist parties all their lives -- I think it's quite common in France.
If you can't argue with such people, it shows you are really just a posturer, concerned about your own virtue.
However, I don't take as the sole measure of anything, how it affects me., or at least I try not to.
Most of the people in the SL were good people, concerned about the world, willing to sacrifice a lot in the pursuit of their ideals. Many of their critics seem to be just bruised egos, people who would not have made it in any serious revolutionary group.
What happened to the SL was mainly the result of outside forces -- the lack of any realistic prospect for revolution.
I'm glad there was no realistic prospect for revolution, but I'm sorry to see that so many good people ended up wasting part of their life ... and for some of them, including several I recruited, their whole life.
For those who still within the group, I hope they get some monetary compensation when the organization's physical assets are liquidated.
