JimW
支那暗杀团
tbf they struck me as ridiculous at the time but get your bigger point.
What's the Spartacist League up to these days?
- Thread starter Idris2002
- Start date
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
They struck me as ridiculous too but so did most left wing micro groups. I guess reading VNC's posts made me reappraise that a bit. The scale of self-belief that was needed to pull off a revolution - that probably is generally delusional but I'm not sure it would happen without it. And in the 20thC revolutions still happened.
hitmouse
music obfuscation technology
I think Jim got it pretty much right there:
This is nail on the head for me, imagine that energy channelled into something even half productive, imagine even half of those people not burnt out and disillusioned. It'd be just the same but slightly less shit
Nah, I think you're over-stating your case here. Believing that a transformational political revolution from below is possible is one thing, I don't think our current social arrangements are going to last forever. Believing that "professional revolutionaries" have a particularly vital role to play in that process is another thing. Not everyone who thinks that revolution is possible and desirable is a Leninist, and even among those who are, most people don't end up like the Spartacists - there must be a fairly high proportion of posters on here who've passed through Leninist orgs at one time or another, but most of us haven't been part of trying to pressure anyone into having a miscarriage. So I'm not sure the craziness follows quite as logically as all that.
Carl Steele
Well-Known Member
This is Bill Logan in 1989 talking about the SL/ANZ in 1974:
"Well, we had a pretty apocalyptic view of things. A sense that the new world was about to be ushered in. We believed that the setting up of a real bolshevik organisation in Australia would lead fairly rapidly to a solution to the crisis of proletarian leadership. More importantly, perhaps, we believed that the final opportunities for the world proletarian revolution were imminent. You’ve got to remember the context. We were the children of sixty-eight. The reality which woke us to political consciousness was the reality of a profound historical discontinuity. The years of our childhood and youth were the fifties and the early sixties—conservative years, each one much like the last. The early sixties were in fact relatively more conservative in Australasia than in America.
And then in 1968 it all exploded: student power, the May events in Paris, the Prague Spring, the Tet offensive. In Wellington on 26 June 1968 I helped lead the student component of a demonstration at the opening of Parliament, in which the Federation of Labour led a huge workers’ contingent. The Governor General had to go in a side entrance. The Australian High Commissioner had not been as wise and had gone to the front entrance. His car was trampled in. We smashed through the lines of troops, with their ceremonial uniforms and bayonets, and were probably only stopped by police at the top of the steps through a sudden falling off of will—what the hell would we do if we got inside?
To people recruited to revolutionary politics in the early 1970s international revolution was not just something read about and understood from books. It seemed a palpable, felt reality. But we also had a sense of the danger of things falling back into the rut of the fifties, or if we had more historical imagination the more pessimistic sense of the imminence of barbarism. In any case we believed that if the opportunities of the day were not fully exploited then revolution might be put off the agenda indefinitely."
The whole talk is here: Appendix B(ii)
There are two analytical problems here in my view. Firstly the estimation of the situation in society was badly wrong. Secondly, had they been in the midst of a revolutionary situation the SL/ANZ, an organisation of 10 or maybe 15 middle class twenty-somethings many of whom lived in the same house, could not conceivably have made a difference to the outcome. And it's the failure to see the latter stone-cold reality when looking back from much later point in time that is most troubling particularly because it's this which justified some highly abusive behaviour.
And yes, because of their vantage point way out on the fringes of society the Sparts could sometimes see what no else saw or maybe wanted to see. And I think if they had just stuck to their literary side and dropped all the "we are the party of the Russian revolution" stuff they could have made a contribution. But this was not what Robertson was about, because without the revolutionary delusions there would have been a literary society of maybe a couple of dozen, not enough to pay his rent.
"Well, we had a pretty apocalyptic view of things. A sense that the new world was about to be ushered in. We believed that the setting up of a real bolshevik organisation in Australia would lead fairly rapidly to a solution to the crisis of proletarian leadership. More importantly, perhaps, we believed that the final opportunities for the world proletarian revolution were imminent. You’ve got to remember the context. We were the children of sixty-eight. The reality which woke us to political consciousness was the reality of a profound historical discontinuity. The years of our childhood and youth were the fifties and the early sixties—conservative years, each one much like the last. The early sixties were in fact relatively more conservative in Australasia than in America.
And then in 1968 it all exploded: student power, the May events in Paris, the Prague Spring, the Tet offensive. In Wellington on 26 June 1968 I helped lead the student component of a demonstration at the opening of Parliament, in which the Federation of Labour led a huge workers’ contingent. The Governor General had to go in a side entrance. The Australian High Commissioner had not been as wise and had gone to the front entrance. His car was trampled in. We smashed through the lines of troops, with their ceremonial uniforms and bayonets, and were probably only stopped by police at the top of the steps through a sudden falling off of will—what the hell would we do if we got inside?
To people recruited to revolutionary politics in the early 1970s international revolution was not just something read about and understood from books. It seemed a palpable, felt reality. But we also had a sense of the danger of things falling back into the rut of the fifties, or if we had more historical imagination the more pessimistic sense of the imminence of barbarism. In any case we believed that if the opportunities of the day were not fully exploited then revolution might be put off the agenda indefinitely."
The whole talk is here: Appendix B(ii)
There are two analytical problems here in my view. Firstly the estimation of the situation in society was badly wrong. Secondly, had they been in the midst of a revolutionary situation the SL/ANZ, an organisation of 10 or maybe 15 middle class twenty-somethings many of whom lived in the same house, could not conceivably have made a difference to the outcome. And it's the failure to see the latter stone-cold reality when looking back from much later point in time that is most troubling particularly because it's this which justified some highly abusive behaviour.
And yes, because of their vantage point way out on the fringes of society the Sparts could sometimes see what no else saw or maybe wanted to see. And I think if they had just stuck to their literary side and dropped all the "we are the party of the Russian revolution" stuff they could have made a contribution. But this was not what Robertson was about, because without the revolutionary delusions there would have been a literary society of maybe a couple of dozen, not enough to pay his rent.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
They were absurd at the time. Anyone who was involved in left activities in the 80s or 90s and came in contact with them thought they were nuts. The few remaining still are. They were always outliers. It is not that the ground has changed but that they were always in space.
Carl Steele
Well-Known Member
They believed a transformational political and social revolution was possible only with their leadership. Without their leadership the revolution would inevitably fail. Everything flowed from this.
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
That was the impression I got from neo-con.
We needed his guidance to bring about world peace, or something along those lines.
Idris2002
Christmas Eve, you know?
I was going to post that this is typical Leninist behaviour, but then I thought you have other examples of the breed who can at least pretend to be normal people. The Spartoid family who turned up and heckled at the Joe Higgins meeting I went to about the GFA were dismissed by him as "living in cloud cuckoo land". The Madness of King Spartacist remains a riddle wrapped within a puzzle, enclosed within an enigma.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
Is the GFA in that context the Gaelic football association?
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Yes and obviously this is the bit that makes them look crazy now - but I was talking about the belief in the transformational political and social revolution, that it was possible and even imminent.
I don't think there's really anyone on the left who actually thinks that now - and to be honest if I met one who did, I'd tend to think they were crazy.
We're reduced to formulations like Hitmouse's above "not thinking that our current social arrangements are going to last for ever" - well sure of course they won't, if nothing else the dynamic nature of globalised neoliberal capitalism certainly makes for a cycle of political/economic instability, collapse and reconstruction. But where's the belief that these open up anything more than temporary spaces giving some of us a little respite, a belief in transformation?
I hope it's obvious I'm not defending Leninism here, I was able to resist its temptation in the 70s and 80s, I'm not likely to succumb now. But reading these posts - I mean it's reminiscent to me of reading political/religious tracts of the Levellers - the certainty of deliverance, the building of the new Jerusalem - incomprehensible faith now.
Idris2002
Christmas Eve, you know?
I remember reading the chapter in The World Turned Upside Down about the Diggers, and thinking "this sounds like Jonestown".
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
I think I meant to say Diggers not Levellers. And I'm probably working off memories of the same chapter.
hitmouse
music obfuscation technology
You ever read much about Münster?
Idris2002
Christmas Eve, you know?
Nopeski - there's still a street named after him in Halle, though, a relic of the GDR.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
The anabaptist rising there?
hitmouse
music obfuscation technology
Yep, that's the one. Confusingly the Germans had Müntzer the person and Münster the place, but it was the latter I was thinking of, with John of Leiden and all that, as having serious Jonestown-y vibes, from what I've read of it.
Carl Steele
Well-Known Member
The Spartacist League of Britain, after a long and deafening silence and a protracted faction fight, have recently denounced themselves for various deviations from the revolutionary program and proudly announced a return to the good old days of 1978. And they seem rather pleased to be able to tell the world that they've learned nothing new in the last 44 years.
And this is the point about what Logan is saying in the quote in a previous post of mine. When he talks about how back in 74 he thought the revolution was imminent he's not doing this to investigate how he could have got things so wrong. He's trying to justify his (and other's) deranged behaviour. Organisations like the Sparts and the Bolshevik Tendency and Logan's Permanent Revolution Group do not learn from experience. They go on and on, repeating the same behaviour.
VNC's claims about the early Spartacist League and the struggle to build the revolutionary party are pure fantasy. I didn't get into that with him because I've been around that block a couple of times and it's pointless and exhausting. No doubt some of those in the Spartacist League believed in the possibility of social transformation, but many didn't, they were there for other reasons. And from what I can tell, probably as early as 1968, Robertson was there for other reasons.
Idris2002
Christmas Eve, you know?
Kevin Oakleigh
New Member
Carl, Concerning my posts you have also written:“Nothing rings true” and “...he clearly has no idea who she (M.H.) is” and “...he keeps talking about the "dues". In the Sparts the money you paid was a Pledge...”
I have long torn up my bulletins, notes, and most books in successive painful stages of putting the iSt \ ICL behind me. Not unusal when trying to create a new identity. What I have written so far was based on memory which has proven hazy on one occasion. I’m going to scrounge the web over the next days to find what documents are still available and will have something to say in the future.
Of course I know who M.H is as we were members of a small organisations and sometimes members of the same local. If she is the Australian woman you knew well in the SLB then she certainly knows as true what I wrote concerning sterilisation. I’m not going to mention names, real or party names unless they are publicly known and perhaps not even then. As I have written, this concerned only a small number of comrades involved in one way or another in this sad Vicky story and as it was lived, in my opinion, is a mitigating factor and not an "genuine aberration" in a final judgement on this affair.
The Australia organisation often used American terminology so a branch was called a Local and a Pledge was called Dues. The organisation was funded by its members according to an incomes schedule and consequently it was clear to all what money was“due.” Pledge I find completely inappropriate as it rings of a voluntary boy scoutish donation. Half of windfalls went to the organisation.
Some recollections of the founding conference of the ICL follow that you won’t find on Internet. For those who were present it should be obvious that I’m not a AI App based on a Goggle data base. (To understand what this meant I had to research internet):
Logan found guilty was expelled. Robertson said the party statues guarantee recourse but its the party that decides when and where. The time and place would be immediate there and then. Those who didn’t want to listen could leave. I didn’t want to so walked backstage where I met a black America comrade who shared the same distaste. We exchange a couple of words.
The Samarakkody delegation walked out of the conference and Robertson ranted they left taking the rest of the financial subsidy given to them to participate insinuating malpractice if not theft.
The conference concluded singing the International then Gorge F quickly arose telling all to wait and presented Robertson with a book, written by a namesake James Robertson, entitled “Power, Money and Sex” Lots of laughter and clapping by those present.
Carl Steele
Well-Known Member
Don't know who this guy is or where his basement is.
The term "pledge" came from the SL/US. Logan was expelled at the first international conference of the iSt in 1979, not the founding conference of the ICL. The iSt became the ICL in 1989. Compare this to the posts by Doug, VNC as he's now known. The trial was a highly-charged event but this is sterile and impersonal.
Kevin has spent two days putting this together and still makes basic mistakes. There's lots of stuff on the internet about the Logan trial - for $10 you can buy the 200 page Logan dossier, and there's lots more around for free.
Like I said, Kevin is a troll.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
Worth keeping in mind that something like this would be a great little exercise to give trainee state bods..
Carl Steele
Well-Known Member
If this is the case he's getting about 4/10 at the moment. The sterilisation story is plausible (though I've no reason to believe it's true) and fits easily into the context. But the rest is lamentable - the basic errors and the terrible, flat writing.
This is bugging me, I'm sure I've read this little story somewhere in the dim and distant past (the part about leaving the conference room), can't for the life of me remember where.
From The Organizational Rules and Guidelines of the Spartacist League/US (Article IV, Membership)
3. Every member shall pay a monthly sustaining pledge. A progressive taxation scale (including appropriate deductions as specified by party financial guidelines) shall be established by the CC and adjusted from time to time as found necessary, as a minimum pledge. Any individual exception from this standard below the minimum must be approved by the national treasurer, subject to approval by the PB. Sympathizers should be encouraged to make regular sustaining pledges to the SL/U.S.
4. Pledges are due by the last day of each month. Any member more than one full month in arrears in sustaining pledge ceases to be in good standing. Only members in good standing may vote or hold office in the SL/U.S. Any member more than three full months in arrears in sustaining pledge shall be dropped from the SL/U.S. after notification.
When you left the Sparts you were required to return your internal bulletins, so tearing them up was not an option. And why would you tear up your books?
Samarakkoddy's involvement is heavily documented. This may be accurate, I don't know.
Possible, rings a vague bell. I may have read this or something similar somewhere.
He obviously doesn't know who she is. In his previous post he said she was "on a mission" in the SLB (i.e. passing through for a specific purpose). MH was in the SLB for at least 3 years to my knowledge, she was a member of the Central Committee and I think she was National Organiser for a while. She's mentioned frequently in the Logan trial documentation.
As I said previously the founding conference of the ICL took place 10 years after the Logan trial. But this is the sort of mistake you will make if you're juggling a lot of details.
Can't wait!
He could at least interweave some lurid personal stories to spice things up a bit.
Idris2002
Christmas Eve, you know?
Carl Steele seems to have kicked this guy to the curb - I'll just say that pretending to be an ex-Spart is even stranger behaviour than we're used to around these parts.
nogojones
spelling is overrated
Kevin Oakleigh
New Member
Answer: you haven't read this anywhere
I didn't say internal bulletins; there were those sold to the public.
"Why would you tear up your books": well it's very clear from what you have written, at least recently, that you are, even at a distance of more than 35 years, not even past the first stage of separating youself from the past, which granted, is very difficult to do
You haven't read it anywhere
See a fairly recent photograph down loaded from the Web that I'll try to append. She is one of the four and I'm sure you will recognise her as I did
I'm not sure what you mean, I was never a writer and why does this matter?
I don't know what a" trainee state bod" could be
Attachments
Last edited:
Kevin Oakleigh
New Member
locomotive
come on baby, do the locomotion
No, I'm a Spartacist!
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
takes one to not know one..Similar threads
