Thursday, November 28, 2013

A Response from Another Ex-Spartacist Member

I feel compelled to respond to your political positions as outlined by the numerous emails you've sent and your website "spartacistwatch".

Let me just make it clear that although I speak for myself and not the Trotskyist League, I defend them, the ICL as well as Jim Robertson. Tynan is in fact quite right when he characterizes your position on the Latimer case as trivializing lynching, primarily because in making that statement, you equate the systematic oppression and terror faced by black people in the United States with the death of a young, white, disabled women. What's worse is that in an article on your website, you falsely claim that disabled people were the main victims of the Holocaust, which is an unabashed revision of history that not only trivializes the monstrously barbaric murder of 6 million European Jews, but is an affront to them as well. Although disabled people were targetted by the fascists, it is widely known, even within bourgeois institutions, that Jews and Communists were the main and overwhelming targets of fascist terror. That you should make this false claim is not a mere accident--the Holocaust is one of the most well-documented events in history--this is deliberate.

Diabled people face (and have faced) gross oppression and abuse at the hands of capitalist society. For years, brutal and tragic practices were carried out on people who suffered psychological and physical difficulties in psychiatric institutions and facilities and these continue to this day. They are preyed on by many in this society and are often unable to voice the injustices they face because this is a society that for the most part, would rather not listen to them. Even when they are in the care of socially-conscious, courageous and decent people, they continue to suffer because capitalism is unable to relieve them of some of the pain and suffering they endure. I think that this is a point you fail to grasp.

Note: This member has since cut ties with the ICL and retracted their statement. Although there is no doubt in my mind this represents the views of the ICL.

No comments: