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)