Neoprene

btw.: auf Archive.org frisch online gestellt: http://www.archive.org/details/WhatTheSpartacistLeagueReallyStandForASelfExposureByJamesRobertson … Robertsons „goatfucker“-Rede von 1977

den Kram der IBT gibt es auch auf deutsch. Sowie die Korrektur der Spartakisten…

IBT:
„Wacht auf, Verdammte dieser Erde!“ Erklärung vom 28.1.2010
„Imperialistische Truppen raus aus Haiti!“ vom 11.2.2010
„Unterstützung der US-Truppen in Haiti: IKL rudert zurück“ vom 23.3.2010
Was ist die „Korrektur der Spartakisten“, wenn es nicht die von mir angeführte Erklärung vom 27.04.2010 ist?

hast recht, habe ich nicht gesehen. sorry…

Aus einem Email-Austausch vor einigen Jahren zum Thema der berüchtigten Rede von Jim Robertson 1977 :
A:
By the way, it would be very unwise to assume that the transcript the LRP is publishing of the debate is accurate. After the so-called „goatfucker“ speech by Robertson in 1978, the LRP distinguished itself by an account of the speech which claimed that Robertson had stated that the Albanians made their living by kidnapping and selling Greek children!
B:
I am puzzled that you brought up one of the most controversial episodes in the history of the iST, the socalled „goatfucker“ speech by Robertson (which as far as I could find out, was held in 1977). A short Google search gave me the following:
The reports published in a.p.s.t. have cited the LRP (partial transcript), the Marcyite CtC (complete transcript) , and Paul Kneisel (an eyewitness).
Two groups carried published reports of Robertson’s goatfucker speech, based upon transcripts of the public Spartacist forum [29 January 1977] „Towards the Rebirth of the Fourth International“. …
Obviously neither Stevens, Murphy or Kneissel are prima facie reliable sources, this is something even I can see after only a short look into the apst history.
But still I would like to know how you judge this controversy now in hindsight. It seems as if you simply dismiss the quotes as mere inventions, as the WV article did too. But what really happened then, what were the actual remarks of Jim? What happened to the SL-tapes of the forum, for instance?
A:
I attended this speech, and thought it was a fine speech at the time. To me, there is nothing controversial about it. The forum was the last occasion on which I saw Kneisel. He’d been on the National Bureau of the SYL until spring ’76 (party name Abbott), when he left the organization. I’d rather liked him, which is why I made the error of attempting to collaborate with him on the „anti-fascist newsgroup“ project you’ve no doubt seen referred to in the APST archives.
At the time, his only political disagreement with it, or with the SL, was that he thought that Rosa Luxemburg and not Lenin was correct on the national question.
The CtC transcript is probably fairly accurate. The LRP’s most certainly was not.
My old ex-friend Stevens did not include the truly vicious and lying misquoting of Robertson committed by the LRP in the posting you quote from, as that would not have served his purpose. The above quotes may be accurate, I’m not certain. I’m pretty sure they stem from the CtC transcript.
At the time he was attacking the SL, and me, on APST, this was to a considerable degree due to personal grievances he had with me, which he was expressing in this fashion on APST. Since then, we have resolved these matters, and he is no longer applying his polemical talents in this way.
Kneisel is denouncing the WV ed board (i.e. Norden presumably) for strong words used about the LRP in particular’s misrepresentation of Robertson, namely „If you believe [the LRP’s published account of Robertson’s speech], you’ll believe the ‚Protocols of the Elders of Zion‘.“
This is a quite reasonable statement, in my opinion. What else can you say about an organization that invents quotes such as the one I referred to in my last E-mail?
Kneisel’s „anti-Semitism“ hobby-horse reflects his capitulation to Zionism, expressed through collaboration with the notorious ADL.
It is simply not true that the SL ever denied that Robertson made the question/statement re: Marx and Albanians referenced above, it was explicitly defended in WV, I would even look it up if I thought it would change your opinions.
But I am disinclined to, as this dialogue is more and more convincing me that you are indeed, as you say the SpAD has concluded, simply an „enemy of the party,“ looking for any stick to beat the SL with.
I do not think the exact wording Robertson used is that important, I would not be surprised to find out that the CtC quotes, which Stevens so cleverly amalgamated with the viciously lying LRP version, are accurate.
I am sure the tapes are kept wherever the SL keeps such tapes.
The „controversy“ was an attempt by New Left moralists to scandalize the SL, with no political significance whatsoever. Much of the LRP’s debate policy was simply more of the same 25 years later, which is why my attitude to them is dismissive.
B:
Once again I am basically puzzled by your approach: That I, as someone who obviously was not there, ask you about something of the past of the SL, that you yourself brought up as an argument, simply by heaping together what is available on the net thanks deja news brings you to the following harsh verdict:
“But I am disinclined to, as this dialogue is more and more convincing me that you are indeed, as you say the SpAD has concluded, simply an „enemy of the party,“ looking for any stick to beat the SL with.”
As a starter, I still cannot figure out, what roughly or exactly, Robertson really said at the forum that you mentioned. As a participant you were of course in an ideal position to tell the facts. The problem as usual has two sides, what actually happened, who said what and then, and only then, the question was it appropiate, correct, wise, legitimate etc.
“The CtC transcript is probably fairly accurate. The LRP’s most certainly was not.”
Once again, my problem is, that I don’t have the slightest chance, to make a sound guess myself, as I neither know, what the CtC wrote nor what the presumable falsifications of the LRP were. You perhaps can or could at least then, it is a quarter of a decade ago, I admit.
Do you by chance have those „vicious and lying misquoting of Robertson committed by the LRP“? I must have overlooked them or at least have not searched seriously enough.
My problem with the defence of WV against the LRP is that I as nonparticipant cannot make my own judgement without knowing what the critized speaker actually said. Only then one can decide on whether it was correct, cynical, or chauvinist. You may have reasons to describe it as reasonable, I am in no position to do this so far.
“I do not think the exact wording Robertson used is that important, I would not be surprised to find out that the CtC quotes, which Stevens so cleverly amalgamated with the viciously lying LRP version, are accurate.”
I indeed hold the position that the exact wording of what someone says is important. I have seen it to often and unfortunately also in speeches of comrades or newspaper articles that a „condensed“ „summarized“ version of an argument simply ended in an amalgam, a distortion etc.
“I am sure the tapes are kept wherever the SL keeps such tapes.”
I obviously asked the wrong question, of course I meant, why did the SL not defend itself by publishing the „real“ speech? This normally is the best defense against attempt to scandalize.

In einem seit langem mal wieder interessanten Schlagabtausch/Diskussionsthread aus der usenet-Gruppe alt.politics.socialism.trotsky „Spartacist League line change on Haiti“
hat ein Unterstützer der IKL folgendes gepostet:

„Pragmatically speaking, the biggest mistake WV made was to polemicize with the IG etc. over this. Like I said, there are moments when silence is golden.
The WV should have concentrated on blasting Obama for just what a horrible botched-up racist imperialist job of *aiding* the Haitians was being conducted, without bothering to advance any particular slogans for the situation, being as the immediate situation is so hopeless. The answer to catastrophes like the Haitian earthquake is abolishing capitalism and establishing world socialism.
And, if it felt like attacking the IG at all over this, the thrust should have been over just how pollyannaish their idea that a Haitian revolution was on the agenda is, without getting into squabbles over slogans for a basically hopeless situation.“

Wo er Recht hat, hat er Recht, bin ich geneigt hinzuzufügen.