Correction

The person I confused Stephen Barret for is James R. Raidler. He edits Autism Watch which is affiliated to Quackwatch. Autism Watch refers people to a book about "curing" Autism and this same site describes Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA) as "well settled". ABA has been known to use aversives such as hitting, spanking, hair pulling and even electric shocks.

Recommended Sites on Autism and ABA:

http://www.autismcrisis.blogspot.com/ Autism Crisis

http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/naa_02.html No Autistics Allowed

http://www.autisticadvocacy.org/ Autistic Self Advocacy Network

On the ICL's Social Darwinist Rump

Comrades,

I am writing because I am deeply disturbed by your worsening pattern of ablest bigotry. Lately the ICL has embraced Social Darwinist and ablest views towards autistics. In your recent article Capitalist Reaction and Anti-Vaccine Hysteria in your December 4, 2009 issue of "Workers Vanguard" you describes Autism as a "disorder", Autistics as "brain damaged" and talks about people "suffering" from Autism. I would like to point out that most Autistics, including myself, find such remarks deeply offensive. Autism rights groups such as the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (http://www.autisticadvocacy.org/) would have a bone to pick with you about spewing such ablest venom. Have you even bothered to hear the perspectives of actual Autistics or Autism rights groups?

Currently there are people in your cult who champion Robert Latimer an ablest and fascistic bigot who sits back while outright fascists champion him. The drones in your cult that I have spoken to still champion him despite this and haven't even bothered to hear perspectives from the disabled community. Taken into account the fact that your organization does not permit independent thoughts or opinions I am assuming this is the party line (please feel free to let me know if this is not the party line). If this is the party line then your organization is in a de facto Red-Brown coalition.

In terms of your newfound bigotry towards Autistics it seriously cuts against some of your more commendable statements and citations such as:

"There are broader social implications, as Gould notes: "Antiessentialist thinking forces us to view the world differently.... We lose criteria for judgment by comparison to some ideal: short people, retarded people, people of other beliefs, colors, and religions are people of full status." To put it another way, to hate and fear change and variation is a hallmark of reaction and religious superstition."
   - "In Defense of Sex and Science: Kinsey",  Workers Vanguard No. 839, 7 January 2005

as well as:

"Living things—wasps, flowers, people—do not have an "immutable essence," or "ideal form" around which variations cluster. In real life, each one is individual, and that individuality itself is one of their most valuable aspects.    - ibid.


These statements which were part of a truly stellar review of the equally good Kinsey movie/documentary (There was a movie and documentary that came out around the same time) consistent with the views of Autism and disability rights groups and the neurodiversity movement. In fact when I made these statements in the times of yore (Winter 2005 if my memory serves me correctly) people in the organization actually agreed with me and was disturbed that there are groups that wished to "cure" autism. 

Alas, as the whims of your peerless leader James Robertson (who disgustingly ordered a "steak a la Auschwitz" in a german restaurant) change so must the party line. Any cadre who doesn't follow the latest whim of the peerless leader is subject to "criticism/self-criticism" which I myself have been subjected to (although I was a supporter and not a member).


I will state again that your total disregard for the grievances of the disabled completely discredit you and undercut any of your claims to be a tribune of all the oppressed. If you are unable to muster the humility and integrity to regcognize and repudiate your revolting ablest bigotry, you can at least refrain from continuing to spew bigotry towards autistics and others people with "disabilities".


Bolshevik Greetings,
Michael G.


P.S. That is not to say that I am in any way opposed to vaccinations (I myself recently got the H1N1) and you are right to denounce people who oppose vaccinations. And I do appreciate criticisms of Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, Generation Rescue, Age of Autism, National Vaccine and Information Centre, PutChildrenFirst.org etc. All of whom are extremely bigoted towards autistics along with being irrationally hostile towards science.

On Stephen Barrett and Autism

Stephen Barret MD who is bigoted towards Autistics also describes Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) as "well settled" therapy. A good site on ABA is the following:
http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/naa_03.html
It is by Michelle Dawson an Autism rights advocate

Also here is an example I found of a fascist who supports "curing" Autistics:
http://www.scritube.com/limba/engleza/human-resources/WHITE-RENECADE557141114.php
This individual is a member of the Stormfront White Nationalist Community

On The ICL's Ongoing Ablest Bigotry

* This was originally sent as an email to the ICL*

Comrades,

In writing to express concerns about a recent article on homeopathy and other quacks. In Medical Science vs. Homeopathy, in WV. 947 you uncritically site Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch. First of all, Stephen Barrett does expose quacks, however he a die hard anti-Autistic bigot. He support the "Cure Autism" Movement which has the support of outright fascists.

Respected authorities, such as Alfred C. Kinsey and Stephen Jay Gould, have pointed out that the notion of "correct" and "incorrect" genes is unscientific.

This is part of a disturbing trend of ablest bigotry from the ICL. The ICL is currently in a "de facto" bloc with fascists over the lynching of disabled children. Jim Robertson when in Germany once entered a restaurant there and as for a "steak a la Auschwitz" and also addressed ICL members (then the iSt) saying "hiya comrades, heil Hitler". Then their is your notorious "Red Avenger" stunt which involved dressing in Nazi regalia complete with Nazi swastika armbands. The disabled and mentally ill were amoung the first victims of the Holocaust.

There are the constant ablest and psychosiphobic remarks in your paper (schizophrenic, psychotic, demented are often used as insults). I have also noticed you have used words like "retard" which is actually derogatory. You even at one point equated the mentally ill with sociopaths.

Also, I have yet to see a single article dedicated to the rights of the disabled or mentally ill. In issues concerning the disabled such as homelessness, unemployment and healthcare you often manage to go without making a single mention of the disabled and mentally. Or at best you might eke out a fragment of a sentence.

The party also refuses to recruit and purges members with disabilities and mental illness.

I must say I am extremely unimpressed at your unprincipled and opportunist gyrations and suggest that you making an honest accounting of your programmatic overtures. As far as I am concernes you have no business calling yourself a tribune of ALL the oppressed unless you seriously clean up your act.

Trotskyist Greetings,
Michael G.

On the ICL's De Facto Bloc with Fascists over the Lynching of Disabled Children‏

Comrades, As you probably know I have been subscribed to your paper for years. I noticed in one article where you denounce the Socialist Party of Britain for their part in a truly reactionary and racist bunch of strikes against foreign workers. You talk about how the fascist British National Party came out in support of the rally. You point out the Socialist Party of Britain not welcoming this support is irrelevant.

This is a good point but I don't think your readers are aware that you yourselves are in a de facto bloc with facists over the lynching of disabled children. Everyone in your party I have spoken too has nothing but support for Robert Latimer a sociopath and ablest, fascistic bigot who lynched his severely disabled daughter. Neither the fact that Robert Latimer has the support of outright fascists nor the fact that Latimer has sat back while these forces of death, terror and genocide rally behind him has caused you to waver. Instead one of your drones tries to smear me as a Zionist. Needless to say his arguments blew up in his face.

Your utter disregard for the desperate grievances of the disabled completely discredits you and undercuts any of your claims to be a tribune of all the oppressed. I suggest you do the honourable thing and admit and repudiate your wrong-doings. Making excuses, slandering me and screaming hysterically will only discredit yourself further.

Trotskyist greeting,
M.G.

P.S. I apologize if I was abbrasive in some of my earlier emails with you. In my defence, you hysterical screaming and attempts at brainwashing me into believing that the disabled (who I can be counted among) are better off dead makes it extremely hard for me to be civil.

P.S.S. If you can't muster the humility and integrity to admit your wrong doings you can at least refrain from sitting on your high perch and saying I "have no right" calling myself a Communist, Revolutionary, Marxist, Leninist, Trotksyist or fighter for the oppressed.

The ICL and the IBT on Quebec, Northern Ireland and the Russian Question

I would like to address the remarks Andrew M. made about the IBT on Quebec, the Northern Ireland and the Russian Question. I would also like to point out that these attacks put me in a pretty akward situation since I am not a member of the Bolshevik Tendency. I also want to point out that the Bolshevik Tendency is not responsible for Spartacist Watch and that I don't represent them. I wrote the stuff I did because the I think the ICL is lying about the Bolshevik Tendency and Bill Logan. That does not mean that I agree with each and every one of the Bolshevik Tendency's stances.

First, the Russian Question. From what I understand the Bolshevik Tendency gave the USSR (a bureaucratically degenerated workers' state after the Soviet Thermidor of 1923-24) unconditional military defence and called for worker's political revolution to out the bureaucracy. They had the same stances for the bureaucratically deformed worker's states of East Europe. They also have the same stances for the for remaining bureaucratically deformed worker's states, China, Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba.

I would also like to point out that the ICL made a number of Stalinophobic flinches.For example, when the Soviet military gunned down the South Korean spy-plane KAL 007 which was in Soviet airspace the Workers Vanguard (9 September 1983) stated that if their were Soviets knew their were civilians on board then, "despite the potential military damage of such an apparent spying mission," shooting it down would have been "worse than a barbaric atrocity" (sited from ICL vs. IBT by the International Bolshevik Tendency). The thing here is, unconditional military defence is quite straight forward. Revolutionaries defend workers' states (countries where the working class holds state power) from capitalist counterrevolution and imperialist penetration, WITHOUT conditions.

There is also, there response to the aborting of Challenger. Challenger was launched to deploy a major new spy satellite aimed at the Soviet Union. When it was aborted the ICL said "what we feel towards the astronauts [i.e. the military personnel and technical specialists who were to set up the military hardware] is no more or no less than any people who die in tragic circumstance, such as the nine poor Salvadorians who were killed by a fire in a Washington D.C. basement apartment two days before." So basically the ICL can't make any distinction between impoverished Salvadorian refugees fleeing a right-wing military dictatorship and military personnel who spy on the Soviet Union. Just like they can't make the distinction between disabled children who fall victim to ablest terror and fascistic bigots who lynch disabled children and then sit back while fascist (i.e. the forces of death, terror and genocide) make their case.

Another point is the U.S. invasion of Lebanon in 1983. If this invasion were succesful it would have given the U.S. a major toehold in the Middle East and could have posed a threat to the Soviet Union. There was then a group (I believe Hamas) which blew up the marine barracks. The ICL demanded "Marines out of Lebanon, Now, Alive!" This is despite the fact that the marines had killed civilian in Lebanon (but no sympathy was given to them let alone solidarity).

And then there is the stand-off in the Soviet Union between the conservative Stalinists (represented by the Gang of Eight) and the counterrevolutionaries (represented by Boris Yeltsin and George Bush Sr.). The ICL refused to side militarily with the former. When Kornilov sought to stage a coup against the bourgeois provisional government led by Alexander Kerensky after the February Revolution in 1917 but before the October Revolution in 1917 in Russia, the Bolsheviks gave Kerensky military defense (without giving any political support). Kerensky didn't move against Kornilov while the Bolsheviks did. This discredited Kerensky's bourgeois government in the eyes of the masses and gave the Bolsheviks a great deal of credibility. This paved way for the October Revolution that same year. Unlike the bourgeoisie (who Kerensky represented), the Stalinist bureaucracy (represented by the gang of eight) was not a homogenous class but contradictory stratum that can have both revolutionary and counterrevolutionary appetites. If a Leninist-Trotskyist vanguard were able to intervene in the Soviet Union, militarily bloc with the gang and smash the Bush/Yeltsin counterrevolutionaries then that could probably have paved the way for worker's political revolution. The ICL refused to do this. After the August 19, 1991 counterrevolution had already taken place. To be fair the ICL was a lot more dignified than most left groups which criminally stood behind the barricades with Yeltsin either morally and politcally from afar or worse yet physically. Also, to be fair to the Spartacist hive mind, it was have been easier to smash an embryonic bourgeois state which was created in Russia in August 19, 1991 then a fully consolidated bourgeois state.

Now onto Quebec. Before 1995, the International Communist League and the International Bolshevik Tendency had the exact same stance on Quebec. They defended Quebec's right to self-determination but didn't call on Quebec to excercise that right. The Trotskyist League (the ICL's Canadian section) even stated:

"As Leninist we adamantly defend the Quebecois right to self-determination including their right to form a seperate state. But we are not nationalists, and we do not advocate such a move unless national antagonisms have grown to such a point that possibility unity between English- and French-speaking workers is decisively blocked. The militant Quebecois working class can and does play a leading role in united class struggles across the country, notably the 1976 one-day general strike and a bitter 1978 CUPW battle. Therefore at this time the Trotskyist League does not advocate the independence of Quebec. In a clearly worded, democratic referendum, we would today vote no."
Spartacist Canada No. 43, 1980

But here the Trotskyist League is slandering the Bolshevik Tendency because they have this very stance today. I read a pamphlet by the BT called Marxism and the Quebec National Question which interestingly enough has more old TL articles making their case then their articles. Anyways they talk about a debate in the 1990s in Ontario between the TL and the BT. The BT brought up numerous instances in the 70s, 80s, and even 90s were class struggle waged by the Quebec working class which sparked class struggle by English-Canadian workers. The ICL doesn't deny that these events took place but still claim that the English-Canadian and Quebecois worker's have been divided to the point that class struggle is impossible since 1972. The TL said that the appropriated demand was Independence for Quebec and has been the case since 1972. Yet they didn't change their own stance until 1995, go figure. The TL has yet to answer several profound questions. How did they come to the startling conclusion that it was necessary to call for Quebec Independence since 1972? How could they have been wrong for over twenty years?

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that national antagonism may reach a point were it may be appropriate to call for Independence for Quebec. I'm not sure if their has been any bi-national class in the late 1990s or the 21st century. This may be due to national antagonism but may also be due to other factors. Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the East European workers' states fell. The political consciousness of the proletariat (working class) was thrown back decades and their hasn't been a whole lot of class struggle in this era. Also, it should be noted that apparently, on the eve of the Quebec referendum, the ICL's peerless leader flip-flopped and said that if Quebec seceded that the ICL would oppose the dissolution of English-Canada into Quebec. Such Social-Patriotic drivel is worthy of the NDP, Stopwar or the Council of Canadians.

Finally, on to Ireland. I TL claims that the BT refuses to call for british troups out of Northern Ireland. I did research on the BT's stance on Ireland. The TL assume because I didn't answer him right away that I was guilty. In the tightly controlled world of Jimstown, regarding silence as "proof" of guilt is an effective tactic. Unfortunately for them the real world works quite differently. I had decided to research on the BT's stance on Ireland then state whether I agree with their stance. As it turns out the IBT DOES call for British troops out of Northern Ireland. I should also point out that James Robertson, the pearless leader of the International Communist League (which the Trotskyist League is a section for) has referred to Irish people as stupid micks (mick is derogatory work for Irish people) in "The Logan Regime". He also made this disturbing quote once:

"they had a marital seperation, and I didn't see anything wrong with her, except that I was worried about the babies Irish girls tend to generate."
[Logan Dossier II, p.75]

Comradely,
A dedicated Trotskyist,
Michael G.

On Andrew M.'s Own-Goals

One thing that truly interests me about Andrew M. to screeds against me, which I think were most certainly carefully vetted by the ICL leadership, is they did FAR more to confirm my allegations than refute them. For instance I said that they were hypocritical for going after Bill Logan as a "sociopath" when they have nothing but sympathy for Robert Latimer who murdered his daughter in cold blood. Andrew M. pathetically and disgustingly defends Robert Latimer. I point out that how Jim Robertson's definition of psychopath/sociopath flies in the face of how leading world authorities on psychopaths define the term. Since I have listed the criteria for psychopathy numerous times (the criteria I list were devised by Robert Hare a leading world authority on psychopath and is a standard checklist for psychopathy throughout the western world), if Bill Logan truly is a sociopath they could have easily gone through that criteria and stated which of those characteristics Logan actually has and given concrete instances of him exhibiting those characteristics. Instead, Andrew M. like the mindless ICL drone that he is defended the early definition (that a sociopath is someone who is mentally insane) which is closer to how Hollywood defines psychopathy than how actual psychologists and psychiatrists define psychopathy. I also argued that the ICL is deeply insinuated with ablest bigotry. Andrew again makes my case but confirming that the ICL does support Robert Latimer who murdered (I lynched as I would word it) his severely disabled daughter and then sits back will outright fascists (neo-nazis, klansmen, skinheads etc.) make his case. Andrew M. also defends his peerless leaders equation of the mentally ill with psychopaths. He says that "mentally insane" people "sometimes do terrible things". As I pointed out earlier in a previous post the mentally ill are no more dangerous or violent than the average person. I cited Gastown Vocational Services (http://www.gvsonline.ca/emp.htm#q6) which is staffed by certified psychologists, occupational therapists and the like.

Another point, the ICL including Andrew M. like to dole out nasty allegations against their opponents. Andrew M. slandered me as a "Zionist", he said that I was "vile and hypocritical" for saying I defend disability rights and fight for the oppressed, he said I had "no right" calling myself a Communist, Revolutionary, Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyist or fighter for the oppressed, he implied that I "snear" at the oppressed. But the ICL, including the drone Andrew M., are EXQUISITIVELY SENSITIVE to criticism. Andrew M. (one of the ICL's several hundred or so mouthpieces) went as far to imply that my blog denouncing the ICL (and unlike Andrew M. and the ICL, I actually have a case against them) would someday be used my Wall Street against the ICL.

Trotskyist Greetings,
Michael G.

Thoughts on the Logan Issue

I would like to talk about the expulsion of Bill Logan. First of all, I want to answer why Bill Logan was expelled from the International Spartacist Tendency (now the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist)). Bill Logan was quite effective in recruiting people. When he and Adaire Hannah were head of the New Zealand section of the tendency, the section increased by five times. When they headed the british section they oversaw the largest regroupment in the history of the tendency. Bill Logan and Adaire Hannah also could not be expected the follow each and every order of the international leadership of the tendency. The leadership was fearful that Logan and Hannah were capable of carrying a large minority or even a majority in a potentional internal dispute with the international leadership. Jim Robertson and co. were fearful that the their rule could be threatened.

Now to answer why Bill Logan is heading the International Bolshevik Tendency. The fact is Bill Logan and Adaire Hannah recognized and repudiated their own mistakes thirty years ago and for the last twenty years have been building an organization that operates in a very differently than the New Zealand section of the International Spartacist Tendency in the 1970s.

Now for the allegations against them. Logan and Hannah were accused of forcing a women named Vicky to have an abortion. After extensive research I have come to the conclusion that this is a malicious fabrication on the part of the ICL/IST. This women Vicky was, according to her doctor, likely to have a miscarriage and the doctor had perscribed her medication that would prevent a miscarriage. Logan and Hannah advised her not to take the medication and let nature takes its course. After she had the child they tried to persuade her to give up the child. Was their behaviour an unreasonable intrusion into Vicky's personal affairs, yes. Does that mean Logan and Hannah are sociopaths, no. As for the allegation that they ripped apart couples this is a fabrication too. Their were constant transfers throughout the organization on an international level. Logan headed the New Zealand section. These constant transfers led to couples being seperated.

In terms of women being expected not to have children this was quite typical of the International Spartacist Tendency (now the Internation Communist League (Fourth Internationalist)) You have such attitudes as the following:

"This is even evident from the materials included in the “dossier.” In Joel’s condemnation of Bill, for example, he wrote:

“What made the Logan/Hannah regime a caricature of Spartacism and sometimes worse was that it usually began with a correct point, for instance, babies are not good for the revolutionary party, and then carried it to an extreme for one reason or another, usually creating the rationale of organisational necessity and there was no internal corrective.” [LD I, p56]

At one point in the trial, Bill asked Jim Robertson whether, during his visit to New York in 1972, they had discussed how to handle members having babies:

“Robertson: Then there is no necessary reason that this would have come up—except that I—except I recall that we generally had rather full, extensive and informal discussion, and I was in some state of trauma. It’s likely, but by no means inevitable that we would have discussed such a thing because I was running around saying ‘goddamned babies.’” [LD II, p67]

In an April 1972 letter on the question of members having children, Nancy R. observed:

“Furthermore, the SL does not ‘demand such a sacrifice as having no children.’ Most party members do discourage it, but the official position of the party is that having children is a personal decision.” [LD I, p30]

Joel’s off-hand observation that “babies are not good for the revolutionary party” and Jim’s expostulations regarding “goddamned babies” exemplify attitudes that prospective parents might indeed have found discouraging."

(Sited in On the Logan Show Trial, International Bolshevik Tendency, www.bolshevik.org)

Jim Robertson also advised Patrick of the International Spartacist Tendency:

"He said 'I love to fuck her.' And I said, 'Then she's coming back. But she's Irish, she'll give you babies, lad. Why don't you get your tubes tide?' And that was all. And then we killed the rest of the bottle. And I reported whatever to Logan, and I said, 'Well they're gonna do what they're gonna do."

(ibid.)

There is no question that Vicky was subjected to entirely illegitimate pressure to give up her baby, but as the ICL “dossier” documents, this was well known to the iSt leadership in New York. In his 30 November 1977 letter to the SL/ANZ, for example, John Sharpe, the iSt’s International Secretary, wrote:

“My understanding of the origins of the Vicki [sic] question, at least as far as the party is concerned—having her baby when David was away, her fundamental ambiguity over a long period of time about giving it up, the strong and protracted pressures on her to give it up—would indicate that that problem has existed for years. In hindsight, we may have put a pressure on her that she cannot handle, namely to choose between the organization and her kid.” [LD I, p47]""

(Sited in On the Logan Show Trial, International Bolshevik Tendency, www.bolshevik.org)

Now was the international leadership innocent? Well several leading cadre from the main section in the U.S. including Jim Robertson, the head of the international tendency spent considerable time the New Zealand section when it was headed by Logan and NONE of them saw ANYTHING amiss. NONE of them blew the whistle. Quite a few prominent members from the main section were in regular contact with members of the New Zealand section when it was headed by Logan. Also, Vicky husband, David S., (Vicky was the women who was pregnant) was transferred to the American secton where Jim Robertson (the head of the organization) was two years after the incident started up. David S. was a drinking buddy of Robertson when he was in the U.S. and even lived in the same New York flat with Robertson. However, Robertson claims he didn't know about the Vicky issue until five years about Vicky was pregnant. Also, Robertson when he visited the New Zealand section had half an hour alone with Vicky. Bill Logan even sent letters about what was going on in New Zealand to the American section of the tendency (which doubled as the international leadership). Their was the whole Control Commission where an individual named John E. brought up concerns in about what was going on in the New Zealand section including the Vicky issue. This was several years after Vicky was pregnant but years before Jim Robertson claims to have know anything about the issue. One of the prominent members from the leading section even held Logan purge John E.

Andrew M. claimed that when prominent members from the main section, including the leader of the international tendency Jim Robertson, visited the New Zealand section that Bill Logan made sure that no one said anything and made sure no one was their when they came. This excuse has been tried before by Stalinists:

"During the Stalinist purge trial in the Smolensk province their was a trial of the first secretary of the party in Belyi named Kovalev. During the trial "Questions from the floor pointed out that everyone approved of Kovalev at the time and asked why they [his accusers] had not said anything earlier. But one of Kovalev's more sophisticated accusers claimed he had been silent because Kovalev had, for four years, forbidden him to speak!" (Robert Conquest, The Great Terror, page 334)

On the Support Robert Latimer gets from ICL Members and Fascists

I have talked in great length about how the fascistic Free Robert Latimer Movement has encourage the fascists to crawl out of their holes and come out in support of Robert Latimer. The ICL says, represented by one of their drones Andrew M. said that this says nothing about whether Robert Latimer welcomes their support. However I Workers' Vanguard, the ICL's main paper says something interesting "Britain: Labourites Whitewash Chauvinist Strikes"(WV No.937, 22 May 2009):

"Taaffe claims that the slogan “British jobs for British workers” was “a minor feature of the strike” (Socialism Today, March 2009) while a report on the Lindsey strike in the Socialist (5-11 February) says the BNP “have been bounced off from this strike.” This is hardly the point. Why did the BNP support the strike? The Socialist Party bears its share of responsibility for leading a chauvinist campaign that has the enthusiastic support of the fascist BNP!"

While's there's no denying that the Socialist Party and its anti-immigrant strikes are reactionary and appalling, they at the least "bounce off" the fascists who support their event. Robert Latimer, in contrast, has sat by while outright fascists make his case. He has never disavowed his support from fascists and has never stated categorically that the fascists don't represent him.

In contrast Robert Latimer is down right vitriolic towards those who protest his lynching of his disabled daughter. He describes disability rights activists as "abusive", he describes people who criticize him as "slanderers" and before his first trial said that anyone who supports the charges against him is a "torture monger".

Needless to say the ICL has a lot of explaining to do concerning their hopping in bed with fascists over the lynching of disabled children.

Comradely,
A Dedicated Trotskyist,
Michael Gregory

Some Thoughts Concerning the ICL and IBT on the USSR and East Germany

When Andrew M. denounce me in one of his two poison pen letters he claimed the IBT "sat by while Counterrevolutions took place in East Germany, East Europe and the USSR", while the ICL "fought tooth and nail againt counterrevolution in those places". I therefore decided that it would be relevant to include a publication on the IBT concerning this issue. The publication includes the quotes of both the ICL and the IBT. Allowing readers to see both sides and form their own opinions.


Compare and Contrast
ICL vs. IBT on Stalinism & Soviet Defencism

The following is a selection of quotes from publications of the International Bolshevik Tendency (IBT—including the External Tendency of the iSt, the IBT’s predecessor) and the International Communist League (ICL—including the international Spartacist tendency, the ICL’s predecessor) highlighting differences between the two organizations on questions connected to Stalinism and the defense of the deformed and degenerated workers' states. The complete texts of many of these items can be found at www.bolshevik.org.
1980s: ‘Military Victory To’ or ‘Hail’ Soviet Army in Afghanistan?

ICL

In an early polemic against the then-External Tendency, we noted: "If the ET were more honest, they would admit that they hated it when we hailed the Soviet Red Army’s military intervention in Afghanistan" (see "The ‘External Tendency’: From Cream Puffs to Food Poisoning," WV No. 349, 2 March 1984). Four years later, they finally openly renounced and denounced our call, "Hail Red Army in Afghanistan!" arguing that it was "not a Trotskyist slogan, because what it tells workers is to trust the Stalinists, put your faith in the Stalinists, hail the Stalinists."

On the contrary, our hailing of the Soviet Army intervention was based on the recognition that, whatever the intentions of the venal bureaucrats in the Kremlin, this military action offered the possibility of extending the gains of the October Revolution to Afghanistan. Many Soviet soldiers saw themselves as fulfilling their internationalist duty in fighting to defeat the imperialist-financed forces of Islamic reaction. But for such internationalism to have been fulfilled required, as we pointed out, a political revolution to oust the Kremlin Stalinists and a return to the proletarian internationalist program of Lenin and Trotsky's Bolshevik Party.

--"The International Bolshevik Tendency--What is it?"

IBT

The trouble with the slogan "Hail Red Army in Afghanistan!" is that it failed to distinguish between political and military support. The Soviet army (which has not officially been called the "Red Army" since 1946) is the military arm of the Kremlin bureaucracy. The army’s policies are those of the bureaucracy. Its role is therefore a contradictory one, like that of the bureaucracy itself. Insofar as the Russian army defends the Soviet Union against imperialism (and this was indeed its purpose in going into Afghanistan), we are on its side militarily. If it sweeps away oppressive social structures and replaces them with collectivized property in the areas under its control (and this was undoubtably one possibility of the Russian intervention), we will support such measures. But to support the Soviet army uncritically (i.e., to "hail" it) would put us in the position of having to apologize for the Stalinists when they accommodate themselves to the social status quo or undertake a cowardly retreat. And, not surprisingly, this is exactly what they have done in Afghanistan.

...the SL advanced this deliberately angular formulation in the face of a wave of anti-Sovietism which was sweeping America. Commendable as this impulse may have been, there is no getting around the fact that taken literally and by itself, the slogan amounts to a blanket political endorsement of the Soviet role in Afghanistan.

…The call for "Military Victory to the Soviet Army" corresponded to the concrete situation in Afghanistan because it placed us squarely on the Soviet side of the battle lines without assuming any responsibility for Stalinist betrayals.

--1917 No. 5

1981: Solidarnosc vs. Polish deformed workers' state

ICL

From their inception, the BT claimed to hold many positions in common with us. For example, they too raised the slogan "Stop Solidarnosc Counterrevolution in Poland!" But when the question of stopping Solidarnosc was most urgently posed, they went crazy over our statement that if the Kremlin Stalinists intervened militarily, in their necessarily stupid and brutal way, that we would support this and take responsibility in advance for whatever idiocies and atrocities they might commit. The Trotskyist position of unconditional military defense of the deformed and degenerated workers states meant exactly that, i.e. no conditions. For the BT, this was simply further evidence of our supposed "Stalinophilia."

--"The International Bolshevik Tendency--What Is It?"

IBT

This paragraph is a Stalinophilic perversion of the Trotskyist position of unconditional military defense of the bureaucratized workers' states. As we noted in ETB [Bulletin of the External Tendency of the iSt] No. 1:

"Trotskyists give unconditional military support to Stalinist regimes battling internal counterrevolution (i.e., Solidarnosc) or external capitalist forces (i.e., Finland 1940). This is quite a different matter than extending political support to the Stalinists. We take no responsibility for the crimes of the Stalinists against the working people—whether in the course of military defense of proletarian property forms or otherwise. Military support is extended despite such crimes."

The SL's willingness to "take responsibility in advance for whatever idiocies and atrocities they [the Stalinists] might commit" is precisely the opposite of the position put forward by Leon Trotsky in the context of the defense of the USSR against Nazi Germany in World War Two:

"While arms in hand they deal blows to Hitler, the Bolshevik-Leninists will at the same time conduct revolutionary propaganda against Stalin preparing his overthrow at the next and perhaps very near stage.

"This kind of ‘defense of the USSR’ will naturally differ, as heaven does from earth, from the official defense which is now being conducted under the slogan: ‘For the Fatherland! For Stalin!’ Our defense of the USSR is carried out under the slogan ‘For Socialism! For the World Revolution!’ ‘Against Stalin!’"
—In Defense of Marxism (emphasis in original)

The slogan "Against Stalin!" signified that instead of "taking responsibility" for the anti-working class crimes of the bureaucrats, the Fourth International opposed the atrocities committed by Stalin and the caste he represented.

--"ICL vs. IBT," Trotskyist Bulletin No. 5

1983: Shooting down of KAL 007 spy plane

ICL

If the government of the Soviet Union knew that the intruding aircraft [Korean Air Lines Flight No. 007] was in fact a commercial passenger plane containing 200-plus innocent civilians, despite the potential military damage of such an apparent spying mission, if they deliberately destroyed the airplane and its occupants, then, to paraphrase the French, the act of shooting it down would have been worse than a barbaric atrocity….

--Workers Vanguard No. 337, 9 September 1983

IBT

We say that defense of the Soviet Union includes defense of Soviet airspace. The loss of innocent civilian life was indeed lamentable, but the only "barbaric atrocity" committed was by the South Korean and American spymasters who used these unfortunate people as their unwitting hostages.

--ET Bulletin No.2, January 1984 (reprinted in Trotskyist Bulletin No. 1)

1984: On Yuri Andropov

ICL

He sought to curb the worst excesses of the bureaucracy.
He sought to increase the productivity of the Soviet masses.
He made no overt betrayals on behalf of imperialism.
He was no friend of freedom.

--Andropov In Memoriam box, Workers Vanguard No. 348, 17 February 1984

IBT

Andropov’s failure to make any "overt betrayals on behalf of imperialism" can properly be attributed to his short tenure in office. He certainly didn’t send any more MIGs to Nicaragua or AK-47s to the Salvadoran leftists than his predecessor. He did want to raise productivity—but big deal, so did Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev. (In any case, Trotskyists must view any productivity schemes devised by the bureaucracy skeptically since they usually have an anti-working class character. Trotsky was no endorser of Stakhanovism!) Any sensible top-ranking bureaucrat is going to be interested in curbing "the worst excesses of the bureaucracy" in order to increase the efficiency, security and stability of the regime he runs. Your little homily for Andropov focuses on his subjective intentions rather than the objective inevitability, and even necessity, of corruption and inefficiency in a planned economy run by bureaucratic fiat and secret police.

--Reply to Comrade Samuels, 22 April 1984, ET Bulletin No.3, May 1984 (reprinted in Trotskyist Bulletin No. 1)

ICL

Your comparison of Andropov with Stalin and Beria, the mass murderers of tens of thousands of Communists and Red Army officers, is an obscene amalgam worthy of the pages of Commentary. Andropov’s entire political career was shaped by a more tranquil period domestically. To hold him personally responsible for the psychopathological mass crimes of Stalin reflects the methodology that holds the bureaucracy to be a homogenous reactionary mass counterrevolutionary through and through -- i.e. a new exploiting class.

--Letter to External Tendency from Reuben Samuels, 3 January 1984, Workers Vanguard No. 348, 17 February 1984 (reprinted in Trotskyist Bulletin No. 1)

IBT

The crux of your argument eventually devolves on your profoundly revisionist assertion that it is "obscene" to compare Yuri Andropov with Joseph Stalin. This you say is worthy of Commentary. But this must be taken to mean you think that: (a) Andropov is in some sense closer to Leninism than his predecessor and/or (b) he is in some sense less a representative of the bureaucratic caste which strangled the political rule of the working class in the Soviet Union and/or (c) the caste which he represented has in some fundamental sense been transformed since the time of Stalin. Any of these positions belong in Pravda or in the Daily World, but certainly not in a newspaper purporting to be Trotskyist.

--Reply to Comrade Samuels, 22 April 1984, ET Bulletin No.3, May 1984 (reprinted in Trotskyist Bulletin No.1)

ICL

Trotskyism provides a coherent world-view in which the contradictory character of the Stalinist bureaucracy is reflected. Your assertion, "On the most general level Andropov and the bureaucrats he represents are counterposed to everything that Trotsky fought for," is both undialectical and very distant from Trotskyism.

--Letter to External Tendency from Reuben Samuels, 3 January 1984, Workers Vanguard No. 348, 17 February 1984 (reprinted in Trotskyist Bulletin No. 1)

IBT

For Trotsky, unlike your goodself, the axis of the dialectical contradiction in Soviet society is not within the bureaucracy (energetic Andropov versus sluggish Brezhnev), but between the bonapartist oligarchy and the social structure from which it derives its parasitic existence. This naturally conditions the Trotskyist attitude toward the relationship between defense of the Soviet Union and the overthrow of the Stalinist bureaucracy. It is the responsibility of revolutionists to defend the Soviet Union despite the rule of Yuri Andropov and his caste -- but not in his name!

--Reply to Comrade Samuels, 22 April 1984, ET Bulletin No.3, May 1984 (reprinted in Trotskyist Bulletin No.1)

1989: Stalinism & Consciousness

ICL

The false identification of Stalinism with Bolshevism provided Stalin with dedicated political agents throughout the world; only Stalin and perhaps a half-dozen cronies (who these were changed over time) knew what it was all about.

--"International Communist League Launched," Workers Vanguard No. 479, 9 June 1989

No longer can a Stalin and his half-dozen conscious accomplices wield "monolithic" parties as instruments of class-collaborationist treason in the name of "building socialism."

--Ibid.

IBT

Like the trade union bureaucracy in bourgeois society, the ideology of the Soviet oligarchy has a material basis in its desire to protect its own privileged social position. Trotsky estimated, in a 13 January 1938 article, "that the bureaucracy devours not less than half of the national consumption fund." He stated that "the big aristocrats, the very highest stratum of the bureaucracy, live like American millionaires" (emphasis added). When he talked of the highest stratum of the bureaucracy, he was clearly not referring to Stalin’s personal clique. In June 1937, Trotsky observed:

"Even from the standpoint of ‘vengeance,’ terrorist blows cannot offer satisfaction. What is the doom of a dozen high bureaucrats compared to the number and scope of the crimes committed by the bureaucracy?"

Trotsky never considered that the erratic political zig-zags of the Stalinist bureaucracy, its crimes and betrayals, were determined in advance according to some design known only to "Stalin and his half-dozen conscious accomplices." The SL’s recent "discovery" that, apart from an inner core of "conscious" Stalinists, the rest of the bureaucratic caste, as well as their international agents, were either hostages or unwitting pawns, has more in common with Khrushchev’s self-amnestying denunciation of Stalin’s "cult of the personality" than Trotsky’s materialist analysis of the Soviet bureaucracy.

In a historical sense, none of the conservative and careerist bureaucrats, including Stalin, were fully conscious about what they were doing….

With the criminal idiocy of the "Third Period," the Soviet bureaucracy quite unintentionally facilitated Hitler’s victory. Similarly, the Kremlin oligarchs proved to be the Nationalists’ most valuable ally in the Spanish Civil War, although they did not deliberately seek to hand victory to Franco. Stalin’s murderous purge of the Red Army officer corps, and his irrational confidence in Hitler’s promises, laid the basis for the military catastrophe of the summer of 1941. But again, this was not what he intended.

It is ludicrous to imagine that, apart from a sinister half-dozen who "knew what it was all about," the rest of the cogs in the machine of bureaucratic terror which physically exterminated tens of thousands of revolutionists, were simply "dedicated political agents" of what they mistakenly took to be Leninism. This was certainly not Trotsky’s opinion…..

So why are the Spartacists suddenly pushing this whole notion in the first place? Is it a Robertsonian metaphor for life in the SL? Perhaps, but it may also have a more immediate practical purpose: to make it easier for disaffected Stalinists to feel at home in the ICL.

--1917 No. 7, Winter 1990

1989-90: Capitalist counterrevolution in the DDR (East Germany)

ICL

At bottom, the IBT’s position reflected complete defeatism over the capacity of the Soviet working class to struggle. They had an identical posture toward the nascent political revolution in the former East German deformed workers state following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, i.e. they declared that there was no possibility of a proletarian political revolution. Correspondingly, they denounced the ICL for mobilizing our resources heavily and internationally to intervene with a revolutionary Trotskyist program into the events in the former East German workers state in 1989-90.

--"The International Bolshevik Tendency--What is it?"

IBT

Here the ICL utilizes one of its favorite polemical techniques -- ascribing a position to an opponent and then attacking the invention. We certainly did not argue that proletarian political revolution was impossible in the DDR -- simply that, contrary to the ICL's assertions, it was not under way. "In the aftermath" it has been the ICL, not ourselves, that has had to adjust its position. It is easy to understand why the ICL's "optimistic" position with regard to the DDR proletarian political revolution is one they would prefer to bury quietly.

--"ICL vs. IBT," Trotskyist Bulletin No. 5, IBT

With his perspective of a "treaty community" between the DDR and the BRD [West Germany], Prime Minister Modrow had already signaled his readiness to capitulate to West German imperialism when the new government was formed on 17 November 1989. The concessions he offered did not, however, give the bureaucracy its anticipated breathing space, but only provided further impetus to the counterrevolutionaries. The right won on the ground, while confusion prevailed among the more politically conscious workers who trusted the "honest, reformed" Stalinists. This is why the Modrow regime was especially dangerous, and why it was imperative to warn the workers against it.

…

…The ICL avoided a sharp confrontation with the Modrow regime. Fearing isolation, it saw such a confrontation as inopportune, since all tendencies in the Stalinist party supported Modrow to the end. Such a confrontation would have endangered the ICL's policy of "Unity with the SED."

In this period, the ICL did not focus on attacking Modrow as a sellout whom the workers must sweep away in defense of the DDR. Instead, they criticized him only in passing....

--1917 No. 10

1990: The Treptow Demonstration

ICL

The Trotzkistische Liga Deutschlands and the Spartakist-Gruppen played a key role in initiating the united-front action at Treptow. Our speakers called there for workers militias and for workers and soldiers soviets to stop the Nazis and prevent the political revolution from being turned into a social counterrevolution. We warned that social democracy was the agency for selling out the DDR. We noted that the struggle for workers soviet rule in the DDR could inspire the workers in the Soviet Union, the prime target of imperialism, to take the same road.

--Workers Vanguard No. 495, 9 February 1990

IBT

In the TLD's call for the demonstration there was absolutely no criticism of the SED-PDS's [SED, the Stalinist ruling party of the DDR, changed its name to the Party of Democratic Socialism in December 1989] course of capitulation, and not one word about Modrow bowing to BRD imperialism and German nationalism. But it was these politics that had initially emboldened the Nazis who had carried out the attacks [at the war memorial].

In her speech at the Treptow demonstration, TLD/SpAD comrade Dahlhaus laid out the "SED-Unity" line in full: "Our [!] economy is suffering from waste and obsolescence. The SED party dictatorship has shown that it is incompetent [!] to fight this." (Arprekor No. 15, 4 January 1990). This statement, along with "the SED’s monopoly on power has been broken" was all that was said about the politics of the Stalinists (Ibid.). In Dahlhaus’ speech only Honecker’s SED, which the demonstrators wanted nothing more to do with anyway, was mentioned. But the actual illusions in the "reformed" SED-PDS were not attacked.

…

…Treptow is worth mentioning again. An invitation to the SDP/SPD [Social Democrats] to participate in the mass demonstration against the fascists was indispensable. Workers had to be broken from the SPD. One way to raise the class consciousness of the SPD’s base would have been to challenge its leadership to take a position before the demonstration took place. When Vogel, Boehme, Meckel & Co. [SDP/SPD leaders] initiated the bourgeois outcry against the demonstrators after January 3, the anti-fascist mobilization naturally had to be defended against these SPD scoundrels. Revolutionaries had to try to win SDP workers and SDP branches to support this defense....The ICL, on the contrary, refused to try to draw the SDP into a united action, and justified this a week later on the grounds that the SDP had "no proletarian mass base" (Arprekor No. 18, 12 January 1990)....The TLD [SpAD] deliberately sought to involve only the SED in the Treptow demonstration. [For the Robertsonites] obviously the SDP/SPD workers were part of the "reactionary mass," and the TLD even had the gall to cite Trotsky’s writings against fascism as a basis for this (Arprekor No. 16, 8 January 1990).

--1917 No. 10

1991: Capitalist counterrevolution in the Soviet Union

ICL

The working people of the Soviet Union, and indeed the workers of the world, have suffered an unparalleled disaster whose devastating consequences are now being played out. The ascendancy of Boris Yeltsin, who offers himself as Bush's man, coming off a botched coup by Mikhail Gorbachev's former aides, has unleashed a counterrevolutionary tide across the land of the October Revolution

--Workers Vanguard No. 533, 30 August 1991

The "gang of eight" not only did not mobilise the proletariat, they ordered everyone to stay at work.

The "gang of eight" was incapable of sweeping away Yeltsin in its pathetic excuse for a putsch because this was a "perestroika coup"; the coupists didn't want to unleash the forces that could have defeated the more extreme counterrevolutionaries for that could have led to a civil war if the Yeltsinites really fought back.

--Workers Hammer No. 127, January/February 1992

November 7 [1992] marked the 75th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. But the workers state erected by the Bolshevik power...did not survive its 75th year. The period of open counterrevolution ushered in by Boris Yeltsin's pro-imperialist countercoup in August 1991 has, in the absence of mass working-class resistance, culminated in the creation of a bourgeois state, however fragile and reversible.

--Workers Vanguard No. 564, 27 November 1992

The August 1991 events ("coup" and "countercoup") appear to have been decisive in the direction of development in the SU, but only those who are under the sway of capitalist ideology or its material perquisites would have been hasty to draw this conclusion at that time.

--Workers Vanguard No. 564, 27 November 1992

The events of August 1991, placing the forces of open capitalist restoration in the ascendancy in the Soviet Union, marked a turning point in contemporary world history.

--Spartacist No. 47-48, Winter 1992-93

The IBT attempts to dress up its defeatism in August 1991 by declaring military support for the Stalinist coup plotters -- a ludicrous position since the coup plotters, who were just as committed to capitalist restoration as Yeltsin, were not about to undertake the kind of political and military mobilization required to mount a serious opposition. In any case, the BT's position that "it's all over," if propagated in the Soviet Union at the time, could only have had the effect of demoralizing and paralyzing any nascent proletarian opposition to Yeltsin’s takeover.

"International Bolshevik Tendency--What is it?"

IBT

We took sides in August 1991—with the Stalinists, against the Yeltsinites. The SL, which claimed to be the party of the Russian Revolution, didn't support the victory of either—which amounts to being neutral. The SL is uncomfortable with this characterization, but the political logic of it is contained in their contention that:

"military support for the Stalinist coup plotters [is] a ludicrous position since the coup plotters, who were just as committed to capitalist restoration as Yeltsin, were not about to undertake the kind of political and military mobilization required to mount a serious opposition."
—emphasis added

All the contradictions of the SL position are contained in the above passage. If in fact the Yanayevites were "just as committed to capitalist restoration as Yeltsin," then why should Trotskyists care about whether or not they undertook a political and military mobilization? If the Stalinist bureaucrats (including the heads of the KGB and the military) had been "just as committed" to capitalist restoration as the CIA's friends gathered around Yeltsin in the Russian White House, then there would indeed have been nothing of great importance at stake in August 1991. Yet, if one asserts that Yanayev et al were "just as committed to capitalist restoration" as Yeltsin, then it follows that at some point prior to 19 August 1991 the CPSU bureaucracy had been transformed into a formation that was counterrevolutionary through and through and to the core.

If Yeltsin’s triumph was merely a victory of one gang of counterrevolutionaries over another, if by 19 August 1991 the social counterrevolution had already taken place, then the coup and counter-coup were merely squabbles over the spoils. Yet such a position would conflict with the SL’s equally absurd assertion that Yeltsin, the historic leader of capitalist counterrevolution, presided over a workers’ state for over a year, until, at some undisclosed point in the latter half of 1992, Jim Robertson decided that "it was clear that the working class was not going to move against Yeltsin." If Yeltsin's successful countercoup opened the "floodgates of counterrevolution," as WV asserted, then the SL should have taken sides. (See the extensive polemics on this question in 1917 Nos 11 and 12.)

--"ICL vs. IBT," Trotskyist Bulletin No. 5

All is by no means lost for the working class of the Soviet Union. The pro-capitalist governments that have hoisted themselves into the saddle are still extremely fragile, and have not yet consolidated their own repressive state apparatuses. Most of the economy remains in state hands, and the Yeltsinites face the formidable task of restoring capitalism without the support of an indigenous capitalist class. Workers resistance to the impending attacks on their rights and welfare will therefore involve a defense of large elements of the social/economic status quo. The embryonic bourgeois regimes now forming in the ex-USSR can be swept aside much more easily than mature capitalist states.

None of this, however, can change the fact that the workers will now be forced to fight on a terrain fundamentally altered to their disadvantage. They have not yet constituted themselves as an independent political force, and remain extremely disoriented. The Stalinist apparatus--which had an objective interest in maintaining collectivized property--has been shattered. Further resistance by the Stalinists is unlikely, since they have already failed a decisive political test, and those cadre who attempted to resist are now in forced retirement, in jail or dead. In short, the major organized obstacle to the consolidation of a bourgeois state has been effectively removed. Before the coup, massive working-class resistance to privatization would have split the Stalinist bureaucracy and their armed defenders. Now workers struggling to reverse the restorationist drive will face "bodies of armed men" dedicated to the objectives of Western capitalists and their internal allies. This incipient state power must be disarmed and destroyed by the workers.

--"Counterrevolution Triumphs in USSR," September 1991 IBT statement, reprinted in 1917 No. 11

The critical question is not when did the new Russian bourgeois state consolidate itself (it is still only very partially consolidated), but rather when did it come into being? Unlike the LRCI, the ICL has never claimed that there was a dual-power situation in the ex-USSR following the coup. Nor have they argued that the post August governing apparatus was not committed to either bourgeois or collectivized property. If these two possibilities are excluded, there is only one other answer: the bourgeois state came into being with Yeltsin’s victory in August 1991.

--1917 No. 12

The ICL the IBT and "De Facto Blocs": Spartacist Hypocrisy

The grossly misnamed Trotskyist League of Canada (TL), claims that the International Bolshevik Tendency (IBT) was in a "de facto block" with the English-Canadian Bourgeoisie concerning the 1995 Quebec referendum. Frankly, I think this is baseless. The IBT has consistently state that it unconditionally defends the right of Quebec to self-determination and supports bi-national class struggle. The English Canadian Bourgeoisie opposes both. It certainly opposes bi-national class struggle and oppose the right of Quebec to self-determination. This is clearly illustrated in the Clarity Act implemented by the Liberal party and backed by the arch Anglo-Chauvinist Reform party as well as the Social Democratic New Democratic Party (NDP).

In fact the Trotskyist League had the exact same stance until 1995! In 1980:

"As Leninists we adamantly defend the right of the Québécois to self-determination including their right to form a separate state. But we are not nationalists, and we do not advocate such a move unless national antagonisms have grown to such a point that the possibility of unity between English- and French-speaking workers is decisively blocked. The militant Québécois working class can and does play a leading role in united class struggles across the country, notably the 1976 one-day general strike and the bitter 1978 CUPW battle. Therefore at this time the Trotskyist League does not advocate the independence of Quebec. In a clearly worded, democratic referendum, we would today vote no."
Spartacist Canada No. 43, Summer 1980

In fact over the Charlottetown Accord the Trotskyist League formed a de facto with Arch Anglo-Chauvinist Reform party and voted NO. The IBT abstained. Oh and let us not forget the Trotskyist Leagues de facto bloc with outright fascists over the lynching of disabled children.

Trotskyist Greetings,
Michael G.

Is the ICL a Cult?: A Point by Point Analysis

The following is based on a cult checklist compiled by Dr Michael Langone, editor of Cultic Studies Journal, and published at the website of the AFF (American Family Foundation).

1. The group is committed to a living leader to whom unquestioning commitment is displayed.

Jim Robertson as I understand it is regarded as the "peerless leader" (although I'm not sure if they actually use the term). Any remark or behavior by Jim Robertson no matter how vulgar, stupid, racist, ablest, homophobic, misogynistic etc. is overlooked and even defended, Jim Robertson reportedly has referred to Kurds as "Turds", feminists as "doberman pinschers", the mentally ill as "sociopaths", gays as "sexual psychopaths" the Irish as "stupid micks", Albanians "goat-fuckers" and so on. Any behaviour or remark by the "peerless leader" is made a test of faith.

2. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

I've been reading there paper for about four years now. They go on and on about "recruiting new members", "welcoming new readers". A group needs to recruit, a group a paper needs reader, I get that. But I think the Sparts get WAY to pre-occupied, in my humble opinion.

3. The group is preoccupied with making money/fundraising.

Come to think of it they do get they spent more money on selling stuff and fundraising events (stuff that involves making money) than actual protests. One supporter got lashed out at for not giving enough money at "holiday appeals". Fundraising is okay but not when it becomes so obsessive and not when it substitutes actually doing anything. And I don't think its appropriate to lash out at people for not giving enough at a fundraiser.

I remember one event where a member gave about $20 and spent a about $20 dollars, give or take on there literature. People in the group lashed out at that person, however, because they hadn't given enough. This person was not a well off person and was currently applying for Persons with Disabilities (PWD), welfare and mental health housing. They have a hard time getting employed due to multiple disabilities and mental illnesses. They lived with and are financially dependent on their parents who have a history of abusing them. Their mom more emotionally and their dad more physically. Also for most of the period they were a sympathizer for of the ICL they were being stalked by an aunt who had sexually abused them as a child. When they were about six she would get them look at young girls genitals. Their parents, especially this person's dad welcomed this aunt, his sister to visit the parent's house. She would sometimes come over several times a week, call several times a day, she made concerted efforts to get back in touch with this person. She left letters for them. She would hang around this person's house for up to 11 hours waiting. There were nights where they even slept on the streets or in homeless shelters because they were afraid to sleep at this person's house. They couldn't afford to sleep in a hotel. This person contemplated suicide on several occasions. This person's aunt didn't stop coming until this person called the police although they still have nightmares on a regular basis about her. And YES people in the ICL KNEW about this person's family situation. But what are they worried about? This person giving them more money! And to top that off, since this person left the organization the ICL have refused to refund a single cent of the money that that person donated to them (roughly $320). As I said before, this person was not well off and a $320 refund would be a nice bonus.

4. Questioning, doubt, or dissent are actively discouraged or even punished.

If the ICL can't refute what their members or supporters are saying and it challenges the official stance of the party the ICL always has a plan B, hysterical screaming. They'll meet you privately (usually a group of them) scream at you until you renounce your position. And what happens if you refuse to renounce your views? They'll keep bringing up the issue every time they come into contact with you, hysterical screaming in all.

5. Mind-numbing techniques (e.g., meditation, chanting, singing, lengthy rituals, lack of sleep) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

Like I said in my last point, they have hysterical screaming. Being screamed at on a regular basis will eventually break anyone. I have anxiety disorder and emotional management issues and people in the ICL knew about this yet this didn't change their behaviour in fact I think it was especially harmful to me.

As described by their splinter group the International Bolshevik Tendency:

"A meeting is called where the designated comrade is called to account for mistakes which he allegedly committed. Each item on the bill of particulars is grossly exaggerated and extrapolated; perfidious motivations (political and/or personal) are attributed. Incidental personal criticisms of the individual's mannerisms, lifestyle or demeanor are thrown in for good measure. Those leading the attack typically do a good deal of histrionic screaming and posturing in order to create the proper emotionally-charged atmosphere. The assembled membership is expected to provide the chorus: repeating and embellishing on the accusations. (A reluctance to participate is punishable by being made the next point on the agenda.) Attempts by the accused to agree with the substance of the charges are initially dismissed as disingenuous and insincere, unless the hapless "star" of the proceedings is prepared to exceed all the others in vilifying himself. There is no beating the rap. If you can prove that some of the allegations are false, new ones are quickly invented. Or you are charged with using "lawyer's arguments" and attempting to obscure the overall picture by quibbling over "details." In some cases, the refusal of individuals involved to "come clean with the party" (i.e, confess to the charges) is itself taken as evidence of an anti-leadership attitude. After all, if you don't agree with the charges, then you must think the campaign against you is a bureaucratic atrocity!

Round after round, meeting after meeting, the "fight" continues until the object of the exercise gives up and hands in his resignation or confesses in what is deemed a suitably abject and contrite manner. Breaking down and crying is usually taken as evidence of sincerity, especially in men. The "fight" is then concluded with the unanimous passage of some harshly condemnatory motion. Anyone fortunate enough to be deemed worthy of one last chance can expect to spend at least the next few months as a pariah. Eventually there is a new victim and, with luck, the previous target can gradually recoup his status as a regular member. But the "lesson" is not quickly forgotten.

The leadership's shock therapy techniques are deliberately intended to break the personal and political self-confidence of those subjected to them. Usually the "fights" are aimed at potential "troublemakers"--the idiots and yes-men can usually be integrated without difficulty. The choice posed: to crawl or to leave the group (known as opting for a "biological existence") is only a difficult one for those who take the politics seriously.

These practices create enormous pressures within the organization. They have proved remarkably effective in shaping and molding (i.e., atomizing and intimidating) the SL membership. This in turn promotes among many a desire to ingratiate themselves with the leadership, a constant need to be assured that they are "doing well" and an acute sensitivity to subtle hints on how to do so."

6. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (e.g., how to dress, dietary prescriptions/ proscriptions, what job to take, where to live, who to marry, orders to divorce, how to raise an discipline children).

In my experience the ICL dictating who I could be friends with and who I could interact with and how I could interact with certain people. I was ordered to cut ties with any friends who were leftists but not in the ICL.

Although I have not experienced these or witnessed these things first hand it has been alleged by other people who have left the ICL that the ICL forcibly seperates couples, forces female comrades to have abortions and forces female comrades to give up their children for adoption. However, the ICL's leader, Jim Robertson, is not above scapegoating subordinates for the crimes committed by the organization.

7. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader, and members. For example, the leader is considered a Messiah or an avatar; the group leader has a special mission to save humanity.

The ICL claims that they and they alone have the right to claim to be Trotskyist, Leninist, Marxist and Revolutionary and fighters of the oppressed. As far as they are concerned anyone else who makes these claims is "vile", "hypocritical", "lying" etc. That they an they alone seek to destroy racism, bigotry, poverty and war and that they alone seek to do away with the Capitalist system that breeds these.

Also, being someone with disabilities and mental illnesses I remained part of their underclass. Only those without disabilities or mental illnesses could be part of the elite. Also, when veteran cadre talked about "smashing the skulls of other leftist", manhandled people at political events or lashed out at people at events or their own supporters this their behavior overlooked.

The mentality among the ICL is that any criticism of the ICL no matter how legitimate and even if it is from a Trotksyist standpoint, is "in the services of the enemy of the revolutionary proletariat". Basically, any criticism of them or their leader seeks to undermine their mission to save humanity. They have no problem calling their opponents racist, cops, cults or even nazi-lovers but they themselves are extremely sensitive to criticism. They have always had an are of entitlement and superiority in my experiences.

No matter how disgusting, bigoted, ablest, racist, sexist, reactionary, opportunistic, or counterrevolutionary they get they always seem entitled to sit on their high perches and judge everyone else. The mentality in the group is that anything is okay if they do it because they're revolutionary.

8. The group has a polarized us-vs.-them mentality

The ICL, in my experience, treats everyone even there supporters like the evil incarnate. They are the most hostile towards people who leave (or are kicked out of their organization).

When I left the groups and complained about the groups actions to other lefts groups I was accused of making a "pact with the devil". They treat any criticism of their organization, any questioning of their group or Robertson's authority as tantamount to "being counterrevolutionary" and seeking "to destroy the only revolutionary organization in the world".

9. The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (e.g., police, customs officers, income tax officials, etc.).

For this point I want to point out that if the state is to target any left group I would do what I can to fight such state persecution. I make no exception with the ICL. I am against the ICL thrown in jail for their political views, I am against them being banned from campuses or political events.

In terms of James Robertson evading taxes or breaking laws not concerning the workers' movement such as murder, rape, theft etc. if he has committed such things they have not come to my attention.

Mind you they have refused to refund me for the money I donated to them which I have repeatedly requested back. I am not sure if this action is illegal but that's besides the point. Since this is a dispute within the workers' movement I don't think that it would be principled to take the ICL to a capitalist court.

10. The leadership induces guilt in members in order to control them.

When I worked with the ICL, as well as now, I have voiced my opposition to individuals who murder the disabled in cold blood and groups that rally for these people's freedom. The ICL tried and still tries to demonize me resorting to hysterical denunciations, saying I'm "not a real Communist", that I am "trivializing lynchings", that I am "vile and hypocritical", they ask me how I sleep at night.

As I wrote above when I complained about there actions to other groups, I was accused of "making a pact with the devil" (there words not mine).

11. The group teaches that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group.

Death threats, hysterical denunciations, bullying, vulgar slurs against minorities, manhandling, brainwashing, forcing women to have abortions, forcing women to put up there children for adoption, separating couples, rendering people suicidal and probably other things all acceptable when done by the International Communist League, since they are "the only revolutionary party in the world", "the only party defending the oppressed" etc. The mentally in the ICL, as I have state before is "its okay as long as we do it because we're Revolutionary".

12. Members' subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest to them before they joined the group.

As I stated before I was told to cut ties with any friends I had who were leftist but not members of the ICL. I can think of few instances of people in the group actually having any long term friendship with anyone who is not somehow connected to the ICL. The few people who had friends outside, I can only honestly remember one person, never stayed in touch with them.

13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group. Most people in the ICL who are so busy with the group that they usually lose touch with friends, girlfriends and boyfriends and family.

14. Members are encouraged or required to live and socialize only with there members.

As I state in several above points almost no one in the ICL that I know has any long term friends who are not also connected with the ICL. And there is of course them telling me to cut any and all ties with leftists outside the ICL.

Disclaimer: This analysis is partly drawn on personal experience and partly drawn on what I have read. Although, I try to be as objective as possible these reflect my personal opinions.

Are the Mentally Ill "Dangerous"

Andrew M. claims that the mentally "insane" sometimes do do "terrible things". But according to Gastown Vocational Services:

MYTH

You should be concerned about someone with mental health disability having the potential for violence.

FACT

Contrary to media focus, individuals with a mental health disability are no more prone to violence than the general public, and in fact, are more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators.

http://www.gvsonline.ca/emp.htm

Again, the ICL's crap flies in the face of the findings of experts on psychology and related fields. Andrew M.'s remark really reflect his bigotry towards the mentally ill and don't have any weight in scientific fact. If Andrew had any integrity he would apologize for these remarks and for his disgusting apologies for the fascistic lyncher Robert Latimer. If Jim Robertson had any integrity he would apologize for conflating the mentally ill with psychopaths as well as apologize for all of his other vulgar slurs.

Comradely,
Michael Gregory,
a dedicated Trotskyist

On Andrew's Allegations that Tracy Latimer was in "Constant Pain"

I want to write that I think one has to be deeply insinuated with ablest bigotry to claim that it is "undeniable" that Tracy Latimer "suffered horribly because of her horrible condition" or that it is "undeniable" that Tracy was in "constant pain". The notion that the disabled are in "constant pain", that they "suffer horribly" or that their life is a "hopeless tragedy" is the typical demagoguery of ablest bigots. In fact there Nazi executioners, ones who killed the disabled, (of course there were plenty of other groups who were targeted by the Nazis), who said that they killed the disabled "only to relieve them of unnecessary suffering". Robert Latimer defends his actions on the same grounds.

Also, the arguments people in the ICL who support Robert Latimer, Robert Latimer's more mainstream supporters and the arguments by outright fascists in support of Robert Latimer are all, I think, virtually identical (except perhaps that crap spewed by fascists about Jews controlling the government). I would also like to state again that Robert Latimer has sat back and allowed outright fascists to make his case. The fact that Robert Latimer has never disavowed the outright fascists who support him, I think is a pretty damning indictment of his own political leanings. If Robert Latimer truly was about relieving Tracy of pain and not about killing the disabled he should have stated categorically that the fascists don't represent his views. Robert Latimer to this day has not said a word against the fascists who support him. Also, Robert Latimer's behavior to the Fascists is in complete contrast to his attitude to those who stand in his way. He has referred to disability rights activists as being "abusive", he describes those who criticize him as "slanderers", who said before his first trial that "anyone who supports the charges against him is a torture-monger". Yet he and robertlatimer.net have nothing negative to say about the Fascists who support him.

Andrew said that by "all" accounts Tracy was said to be in "constant pain". All the disability rights groups I have come across refute this claim. So basically a disabled person is murdered. Andrew has the nerve to sit on his high perch and judge me on this issue but hasn't even bothered to read the perspectives of those in the disabled community. He says he doesn't know enough about the issue (boy I'll say) but that he knows enough to "know" that I am "wrong" to call Latimer's acts lynchings. Well he was only right about the first part. Frankly, the fact that he thinks Latimer was acting out of "compassion", is a testament to his own ignorance about the issue. I think if he had said that he did not know enough about the issue and left it at that he would be more accurate. I think the fact that Andrew thinks I am wrong for calling Latimer's acts an act of terror and think makes it clear how ill-informed his is. He hasn't even bothered to hear the perspectives of the disabled. It would be like in the Jim Crow South if one only heard the perspectives of whites (most of whom were racist) on the lynching of Emmett Till and based on that came to the conclusion that they "knew" that it was wrong to condemn the KKKs acts as acts of terror. I think if Andrew admitted he was ill-informed about the issue and didn't disgustingly defend Latimer he could have saved his integrity. It no crime to plead ignorance. However, Andrew has clearly chosen to destroy his integrity and credibility beyond repair.

Also, I am really at a loss at Andrew's allegations that I am "vile and hypocritical" for saying I defend the rights of the disabled. Perhaps in the tightly controlled world of Jimstown, where black is white and white is black, where war is peace, where freedom is slavery, where ignorance is strength such slanders make sense. However, I think the real world is quite different.

I think it would be too simplistic to describe Andrew and simply evil. Honestly, I think he as much the victim of his cult and its peerless leader as he is an aggressor towards me.

Comradely,
M.G.

P.S. Andrew is referred to Andrew M. is different from the Andrew referred to in On Comrade Andrew's Shameful Conduct. They are, however, both in the same cult.

The ICL's Bombasity and the Rights of the Disabled

Andrew M. made a remark that was quite peculiar in his second email to me. He said that every source he read said that Tracy Latimer was in "a great deal of constant pain". I gather he hasn't read a thing from really anyone in the disabled community or by a single disability rights group. Yet the ICL, the hive mind that Andrew is a drone for, has the nerve to prance around and act like they are experts on the issue. To my knowledge, they have yet to read a single article dedicated to the rights of the disabled. I checked their search engine I found only a handful of sentences mentioning "disabled" or "disability".

There are some other points I would like to make. Andrew M. denounced me for "being silent" on the British troops in Northern Ireland. The reason I took a while to respond is that I was researching the Bolshevik Tendency (BT)'s stance on the issue. I am not a member of the BT and don't speak for them, nor do I represent their views. Personally I am for British Troops out of Northern Ireland and apparently the BT is too.

If silence is "proof" of guilt, which Andrew M. claims than lets look at what he has been silent on. Well for one he has been silent on my remarks that Robert Latimer has never disavowed the outright fascists that support him. This I think is quite telling of Robert Latimer. I don't think Latimer is a fascists but his silence and willingness to sit back and let them defend him I think is a very damning indictment of Robert Latimer's own political leanings. Also, I pointed out that whether or not Latimer intended it, his murdering (lynching as I call it) of his daughter Tracy along with the mass Pro-Robert Latimer hysteria whipped up by the Bourgeois Press has had the affect of terrorizing the disabled, inspiring further violence against disabled and encouraging the fascists to crawl out of their holes. Andrew has remained silent on this points but still defends Robert Latimer's actions.

Also, Andrew has remained silent on my mentioning of a letter sent by Bill Logan to Jim Robertson three years before the show trial telling Robertson exactly what Bill Logan was doing. Robertson three years after the letter claims that he knew nothing about the situation three years later.

Also I don't think Andrew adequately addresses one of my other points. I pointed out that several top cadre from the main section (the US section) of the ICL, including Jim Robertson spent considerable time under the Logan regime but saw nothing amiss. Andrew claims that Logan kept Robertson and others from talking to people from talking to people in the Logan regime and that people in the section didn't say anything. Frankly, I don't think this carries a lot of weight. If people from the main section including Robertson had visited the Logan regime briefly, then maybe this argument would have held weight. However, Robertson and other spent considerable time in the Logan regime. I think if it were qualitatively different than the rest of the ICL then these prominent cadre would have blown the whistle.

Some other points, apparently David S., the father of Vicky's child (Vicky was the women pressure to abort her kid), was a drinking buddy of Jim Robertson. When Vicky was being forced to have an abortion David was there. He when this was taking place David was sent to the US section. So I think it is safe to say the information about Vicky being forced to have an abortion would have reach Robertson (if he didn't already know). Also Jim Robertson has been known to tell people the ICL that they ought to have their tubes tied. Around the time Vicky was being forced to have an abortion, James Robertson was prancing around shouting "goddamn babies" and I believe he was doing this when he was around Vicky. Also although it is not official policy, people in the ICL are "encouraged" no to have kids.

Comradely,
M.G.

On Bill Logan's "Sociopathy"

As I have stated before there is a psychopath checklist it is the following:

1) Glib and Superficial
2) Egocentric and Grandiose
3) Lack of Empathy
4) Deceitful and Manipulative
5) Shallow Emotions
6) Impulsive
7) Poor Behaviour Controls
8) Need for Excitement
9) Lack of Responsibility
10) Early Behaviour Problems
11) Adult Anti-Social Behaviour
12) Lack of Remorse or Guilt

This check-list was devised by Dr. Robert Hare a leading world authority on psychopaths he also points out that psychopaths have NONE of the hallmarks of mental illness.

Jim Robertson, head of the International Communist League (ICL), calls Bill Logan a sociopath (psychopath and sociopath are synonymous). He describes a sociopath as someone who is "mentally insane who act it out in social configurations". Andrew M. tries to defend Jim Robertsons definition of psychopath which flies in the face of the findings respected authorities on psychopathy. And continually asks me why Bill Logan is the head of the International Bolshevik Tendency. What he seems to be asking is why a "proven sociopath" is the head of the International Bolshevik Tendency. However, the ICL who continually calls Bill Logan a psychopath can't even define the term properly. So I think it is reasonable to say that the burden of proof still rests firmly on the ICL on whether Bill Logan is a psychopath. Perhaps if the ICL wants to make that case that Bill Logan is a psychopath they should first declare Jim Robertson's definition of psychopath in the Logan Dossier to be erroneous then go through the psychopath check-list and see if Bill Logan actually exhibits any of the characteristics of psychopathy. As for Andrew's allegation that I "hide behind Robert Hare's definition of psychopath I am at a loss at what this statement actually means Since Robert Hare's book Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of Psychopaths amoung Us , which claims that psychopaths have none of the hallmarks of mental illness is based on, if I am not mistaken, over twenty years of extensive of research on the subject.

The ICL claims in the Logan Dossier that Bill Logan experienced delusions. Delusions is associated with psychosis. Delusions and and psychosis are hallmarks of mental illness. So again this would run completely contrary to how leading world authorities on psychopathy define the term. As someone with several mental illnesses including psychosis, not to mention more than a few family members and friends with mental illness, I find Jim Robertson's remarks personally demeaning.

In a genuine Leninist vanguard if Jim Robertson made the remarks he did, other people in the group, I believe would probably say something like "comrade apologize". However, with the ICL being an obedience cult with Jim Robertson as the peerless leader, any remark by Mr. Robertson however vile, fowl, bigoted, ill informed, stupid etc. is made into a test of faith in the peerless leader. Andrew M. tries to defend Robertson's remarks by saying that mentally insane and mentally ill are two different things and the I only would be offended by Jim Robertson's remarks if I thought that I myself was mentally insane. Mentally insane and mentally ill ARE in a way two different things one is politically incorrect. Mentally insane and mentally ill and different in the same way that "Nig**r" and black are two different terms. Frankly, I think Jim Robertson's conflating of psychopathy and mental illness has really become a set of emperor's clothes.

Also, from what I understand, Bill Logan and Adaire Hannah have recognized and repudiated their actions in the Australia/New Zealand section of the International Spartacist Tendecy (IST), the predecessor of the ICL, over 30 years ago and have since then built an organization that doesn't tolerate the same time of behaviour.

Comradely,
M.G.

Links Arguing that Tracy Latimer wasn't in Constant Pain (Part 1)

Andrew M., sneered at the notion that Tracy Latimer's pain was intermittent. He said he would like to see my sources. He claimed that all of the sources that he read say Tracy Latimer was in "constant pain". Well I have decided to show my sources.

http://www.kacl.ca/Tracylatimer.htm Tracy Latimer Resource Page

http://www.normemma.com/artaleof.htm Susan Smith and Robert Latimer: A Tale of Two Murders

http://www.normemma.com/ Broadreach Training and Research

http://www.normemma.com/indxadvo.htm Professional Development of Human Servicess

http://ccdonline.ca/en/humanrights/deathmaking/latimer/archives Latimer Archives|Council of Canadians with Disabilities

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/308119 Latimer Ruling 'Slippery Slope', Disabled Say|Toronto Star

http://www.planinstitute.ca/?q=node%2F181 My Wish for Tracy Latimer|Plan Institute

http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/ideas/story.html?id=94cc7258-aa05-462c-930b-9e25b68c8454 Tracy Latimer's Legacy|Edmonton Journal

http://dawn.thot.net/Tracy_Latimer.html Tracy Latimer|DisAbled Women's Network

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/309347

http://www.ragged-edge-mag.com/drn/latimer0402.html

I intended to add more later too.

Comradely,
M.G.

Some More Thoughts Concerning Andrew M.'s Comments

In the two emails Andrew M. has sent me, which I would imagine were carefully vetted by the ICL leadership, he said that I have no right calling myself a Communist, Revolutionary, Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyist or Fighter for the Oppressed. Frankly, I think this takes a great deal Chutzpah on the part of Andrew and the International Communist League. Andrew M. and his cult are defending Robert Latimer and Ablest bigot and fascistic yahoo who murdered his own disabled daughter in cold blood. Yet Andrew has the nerve to sit on his high perch and call me "vile and hypocritical" for saying I defend the disabled. Vladimer Lenin says in What is to be Done?, "The role of the [Communist] is not to be a party secretary but to be a tribune of the people to oppose oppression and tyranny wherever it appears and whatever stratum of society is affected". The ICL's arguments that Tracy Latimer was "in a great deal of constant pain and Latimer killed her to relieve her suffering" might as well be sited from outright fascists since various fascist group, who support Latimer, make the exact same arguments (except for the crap about "Jew controlled governments"). The ICL takes the program of outright fascists and call it Leninism. Thus dragging Communism through the mud. Its regarded a "sleight-of-hand" for leftists to adopt the program of the liberal bourgeoisie. What do you call it when a left group adopts the program of outright fascists?! I'm sorry Andrew, if anyone here has lost the right to call themselves Communist, Revolutionary, Leninist, Marxist, Trotskyist or fighter for the oppressed, I think it fair say that its is you and the ICL, not me.
Being the apologists for lynchings of the disabled that you (Andrew M. and the ICL) are, you can of lost the right to judge who does and doesn't have the right to call themselves Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyist, Communist, Revolutionary, or Fighter for the Oppressed.

Also, I want to state that as far as I am concerned the ICL has no right callling themselves the "tribune of ALL the oppressed". To cover for its cowardly flinch on the lynching of Tracy Latimer, the ICL quite ludicrously and revoltingly tries to pass off Robert Latimer as oppressed. The ICL now has to explain how exactly white men with property are oppressed. They also claim that Robert Latimer and Tracy Latimer "suffer together". This remark is truly demeaning towards the disabled. Based on the same logic, one could argue that Islamic Jihadist dads and their daughters "suffer together", even if the daughter is "honour killed" by her father (at least Muslims are actually oppressed, unlike Robert Latimer). Or you could logically say that homophobic evangelical parents "suffer together", even if the parents murder their kid. Or you could even say that misogynistic men "suffer together" with the wives they beat. Andrew, perhaps rather than being disgusted with me I think just maybe you should look yourself in the mirror.

Comradely,
M.G.

P.S. I think it is quite telling of the ICL's attitude towards the disabled that would be outraged at the murdering of disabled people being called lynchings. My views on the disabled are not all that different than practically anyone in the disabled community.

Some More Points

I am currently reading Bolshevik Tendency articles on the situation between Britain, Ireland and Northern Ireland. And apparently they do call for British troops out of Northern Ireland.

Also, from what I have observed. I think that the International Communist League has no trouble calling opponents cop, racist, cult, sociopath or even Nazi lovers yet the ICL, I think, seems to be exquisitely sensitive to criticism.

I also think that although the ICL can easily dodge the slings of arrows of reformists and centrist in dealing with Revolutionaries all they have, in my opinion, is slander and demagoguery.

One point of Andrew's I thought was particularly pernicious and cynical was his ludicrous implication that my opposition to the killing of Tracy Latimer, which I consider a hate crime, act of terror or lynching (call it what you will), that I am somehow alibiing Israel's barbaric treatment of the Palestinians (I think is nothing but a malicious sleight-of-hand). As I have said before, Latimer has never disavowed the Fascists that support him. Most Pro-Palestinian activists do disavow Fascists. And unlike what I think Andrew is claiming, I didn't actually call Latimer a Nazi or Fascist but criticized him for refusing to disavow the Fascists who support him.

Also, from what I understand the Zionists actually collaborated with the Nazis during the early stages of the Nazi era (although I am pretty sure the Zionist got persecuted themselves). A famous quote by prominent Zionist David Ben Gurion and a founding father of Israel (who has an airport named after him in Israel), that "if I [Ben Gurion] could save all Jews and sends them to Britain or save a third of them (letter the other two thirds die in the Nazi concentration camps) and send them to Israel I [Ben Gurion] would do the latter" (I don't know the exact wording, but this as I understand is essentially what he said). There are several books that cover this issue most notable being two books by Lenni Brenner called 51 Documents: The Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis as well as Zionism in the Age of Dictators. I think that Norman Finkelstein covers this issue in The Holocaust Industry: Exploitation in Jewish Suffering. The disability rights groups that are against Latimer being freed including Council of Canadians with Disabilties, BC Coalition for People with Disabilities, DisAbled Women's Network etc. do not nor have they ever worked with Nazis.

I am also don't I approve of the notion that I think the ICL has that they are the ONLY people that have earned the right to call themselves Trotskyist and that anyone who questions their supposed "authority" is "counterrevolutionary". Apparently Stalin labeled Trotsky and Trotskyists "counterrevolutionary" and that their criticisms of Stalinism could only serve a "counterrevolutionary" purpose. Well like, the Trotskyists before me who criticized Stalinism I say what is. Trotsky said "to speak the truth to the masses, no matter how bitter it may be" and the truth, at least as I see it, is that the ICL is DEAD as a force for revolution.

Comradely,
M.G.

P.S. I really don't get Andrew when he talked about the Bolshevik Tendency being my "cronies". As I have stated before, I am not a member of the Bolshevik Tendency which means I am certainly not heading there organization.