Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:48:25 -0400 From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki) Subject: Re: M-I: Re: M-G: Re: LTT/LTG - Spartacism and Healyism >Robert Malecki wrote, in his usual garbled manner: > >> As you can see from the below exchanges the so called fake "Trotsky FAQ" >> list as become a center of the hate the Spartacist League and ICL.. Note >> that Brown who sometimes by mistake winds up defending parts of the ICL >> program and is well aware that this list has a conious policy of banning and >> special rules concerning those who have clear sympathies with the politics >> of the ICL in the form of Malecki. >> >> The fake "Trotsky" FAQ is now being used in a viscious campaign by the hate >> Spartacists hate the ICL and linking them with the bizaar politics of the >> Healyites who it was just the ICL and its predessesors who fought on a >> principled programmatic basis for years. > > >The Trotsky Project (as it is being called until we come up with a better >name) is a cooperative effort on the part of people of heterogeneous >political backgrounds to create an online reference work on the history >of international Trotskyism. Spartacist (ICL) members and supporters are >not excluded. We hope eventually to make Spartacist documents, among >others, available. > >It is, however, a working group -- the amount of work involved >grows more evident to the participants all the time. We try to keep the >dicussion focused on information for entries, technical details, and so >on. With most of cyberspace out there for Malecki to cover with his >graffiti, he does not need access to our low-volume, largely task-oriented list. > > Scott another one of those hate the Spartacist champions tries to excuse the exclusionist policies of the moderaters under the cover of a working group for the fake "Trotskyist" faq. And I noticed the so called "entries" of late under such dubious headers like "Re: M-G: Re: LTT/LTG - Spartacism and Healyism" which try to politically connect the Healyites with the ICL. In fact I just posted at least three pieces of "serious" work according to Scott's norm from just the fake Trotsky Faq this morning to the lists. They do speak for themselves now don't they Scott? Perhaps we should go back into the files and post some of Scotts charming pieces of serious work on the "Spartacists" that we have discussed earlier on the lists. Well, Scott you certainly take the cake and eat it too! Here is the charming Scott on the Spartacists! One step forward, two steps back. Actually the article Scott writes about the "Sparts" is most interesting and revealing about the political appetite of Scott himself. Most of the article sounds like a gossip column which at best is only impressionistic according to if Scott got out of bed on the left or right side! However when he comes to any kind of politics he only exposes his own political bankruptcy! Let us take a look at a couple of the paragraphs where Scott actually does try to be political.. > it is never difficult to spot the > Spartacist League at a > demonstration. They are the ones > with the most intricate (not to say > unchantable) slogans. To the > consternation of many who opposed > the Gulf War, television cameras > invariably zoomed in on the Spart > banners reading "Defend Iraq! > Defeat U.S. Imperialism!" What is interesting here is that in fact the Spartacist political banner at the demonstration was completely politically correct. And Scott is defending all those who have a feeling of "consternation" or find correct political slogans "unchantable"! Naturally the question to Scott is just begging to be asked. What slogan or political banner would have not been taken by yourself and friends as a feeling of "consternation" and being unchantable. Perhaps "Defend Desert Storm! Down with sadam Hussien!".. And it also reminds of the old days when the liberals and reformists went crazy when the Trotskyist called for the "military victory to the Viet Cong" and "All Indochina must go Communist!". I bet that these slogans just raised the hair on the back of the neck of Scott and friends! < Their means of differentiation have been curious indeed: >For a long time, the League showed a strange enthusiasm for the >Soviet military (exemplified by the unforgettable Spart >headline/banner/slogan "Hail Red Army in Afghanistan!"). Ah yes the unforgettable slogan of "Hail the Red Army in Afghanistan!" Actually Trotskyist do take sides in a choice between Islamic fundementalism backed up by Pakistan and American Imperialism. While at the same time warning that the Stalinist bureaucracy could make a deal and sell out its regime in Kabul for Glasnost. Thus leaving the millions of Afghani's in the hands of the fundementalists who lately have been trying to take Afghanistan back to the middle ages! And especially women should notice Scot's position on Afghanistan which is what. Victory to the Mullahs? Put the Veils on Girls!? And not only that but his completely sexist position throughout the whole article devoted to the Sparts. I think that Doug for a change pointed out clearly Scott's sickening attitude towards women in another letter today to M-I.. And that is it! Really there is no other politics in the whole of the article. Just a long and boring commentar from Scott about how he thinks the play by play split between the Norden Group and the Sparts developed. So rather then try to answer an article which says absolutely nothing about the split itself I post and article I wrote recently after looking at some of the main documents of the two sides.. In another letter... Warm Regards Bob Malecki Well Scott! Believe it or not the header that you used to trash the politics of the Sparts is perfect for your answer to my letter. So I added three exclamation points!!! >On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, Robert Malecki wrote: > >> Naturally the question to Scott is just begging to be asked. What slogan or >> political banner would have not been taken by yourself and friends as a >> feeling of "consternation" and being unchantable. Perhaps "Defend Desert >> Storm! Down with sadam Hussien!".. Scott replies; >Don't be any more of an imbecile than absolutely necessary, Malecki. I >wanted the US defeated as much as the Sparts did, and at some level of >extraterrestrial abstraction, yes, "Defend Iraq" was "correct." The idea >of building a *mass* movement against the war was never anything the >Sparts lost any sleep over. I did. My family and the folks I went to >high school with are *exactly* the sort of people who become cannon >fodder. You aren't the only working-class person on this list, you >righteous prick. Well, well, well. Grudgingly Scott has to admit that at least half of the Spart slogan was "correct". That is the one step forward! Then he goes on to excuse himself from a correct Leninist position of who's side we were on in this war the other half of the slogan. That is the two steps backward in reality. Because despite Sadam and without giving one ounce of support to this bloody butcher of the Kurds Communists do take sides. In this case calling for the military defeat of America in this war! And he is silent about Afghanistan and the women's question where even the liberal Doug has got your number! Could you be a little more specific about the "righteous prick" stuff. I mean i don't think that my experiences of growing up in New York City during the McCarthy era and the rest of this history was self righteous at all. In fact it was pretty fucking horrible! But perhaps for you who at least got to high school things were different. Most of the people i know never made it that far! But you my friend make it quite clear that the "mass" movement is everything and the political content is nothing. Thus trashing the sparts for their correct line on the anti Vietnam war movement. Where the same fundemental question of which side you are on is posed! A capitulation just like that of the SWP who in order to bath in the light of the imperialist liberal spokesman for the democratic party broke with Trotskyism for reformism of the second International. Naturally a new question just begs for the asking! What happened to the great "mass" second international in August 1914. Yes! they betrayed every principle causing the death of the second International by betraying the proletaliat internationally bt supporting war credits for their own bougeoisies? And the question is deadly revelant both in the case of the Vietnam war and the Gulf war. Where the american left capitulated to its *own* liberal wing of the bougeoisie! > >The slogans I chanted, as if you care, were "No blood for oil" and "Bring >the troops home." I yelled them at two big demos in DC, until my vocal >chords were shredded. And as it turns out, being against that war turned >out to be the very last straw in my relationship with a woman I'd been >together with for most of a decade. If I need any lessons in political >principle, they won't come from you, any more than instruction in correct >spelling. Exactly! The slogans you used were the same popular front slogans of the Vietnam war pasted onto the Gulf war and completely a classic example of the fundementally neo-Stalinist and reformist dominated left of the United States in both periods.. However I an sorry that your Menshevik position caused problems in your personal relations with your girlfriend. And i would not dare on principle drag this kind of stuff into the discussion.. These slogans are in ground and bottom the slogans to mobilize all "progressive" forces against the war. But in fact tying the working class to the bougeoisie! It is the bottom line of both the Stalinist and Menshevik school of falsification. And time and again has led the working class to defeat after defeat after defeat. And your whining about the Sparts never losing any sleep over the anti-war mobilizations is a lie and a slander. Trotskyists took this stuff very seriously and certainly did everything in their power to build a movement based on some very basic Leninist principles. Why even the USec here in Sweden who followed Mandel thought that the SWP was completely bankrupt! In fact we had to fight with the AStalinists of the Maoist version just to raise the slogan og "Victory to the Indochinese Revolution"! Now that was not even a Spart slogan but the slogan of the swedisah Mandelites! Who had a left center position on this stuff. >The reason I wrote a humorous article and not a piece of serious >political analysis on the split (by the way, just where *was* my "long >and boring" account of that split?) was, as it must seem obvious to >everyone but you, because the matter did not seem to me either serious >or, in any real way, political. More like an episode in the life of a >seriously dysfunctional family. I see why you like them. Not really Scott. Because it is just in the process of these splits and fusions that a Leninist vanguard must ultimately be forged! Because it is in these regroupments and splits that the ideological and human material can be found that has the historic links back to Trotsky, lenin and the Bolsheviks... And your last bit makes me want to throw shit at your girlfriend and relations problems. However I will not do that. But Scott I advise you to keep my family out of it! Because it might make me bring up your own personal tragedies linked to your sexist and reactionary line on the women's question. Bob Malecki ------------------------------------------------------- Check Out My HomePage where you can, Read or download the book! Ha Ha Ha McNamara, Vietnam-My Bellybutton is my Crystalball! And Now the International Communist League Page! Just push on the "Spartacist" Button. Or Get The Latest Issue of, COCKROACH, a zine for poor and working-class people. NEW! "RADIO TIME" In cooperation with Stratfacts, Bob Malecki will be giving occasional reports to Stratfacts Radio audiences in the United States. Text for these reports now on line. http://www.algonet.se/~malecki ------------------------------------------------------- --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005