South City Marxist Forum

by Janus Wed Aug 06, 2003 15:21

Kieran's editor now is he? Whatever happened to Simon Basketter? Is he gone, or is he lieing unclaimed in a ditch somewhere?

by Gurrier Wed Aug 06, 2003 15:38

Remember Che's words to his guerrilla army in the sierra maestre:

"Now lads, I realise we're fighting the right wing government, stooges for global imperialism. But whatever you do, keep it in mind that any property destruction or indeed any type of action at all would be premature and would only serve to alienate the working class from our party. Therefore we are not actually going to fight the state, we're instead going to march around the mountains, stopping every few days for a round of speeches and paper selling. We might even get a few big name politicians on the podium, like that nice liberal president Kennedy. That'll really put the willies up the imperialists.

If we play our cards right and the comrades sell their quota of papers and keep the chanting up, the government will crumble before the growing anger of the working class, as seen in the recent wave of anger that is sweeping the world. We are on the verge of a breakthrough comrades, commandante Fidel has a good chance of taking a council seat in Havana in next years local elections. So we can't allow the adventurists to provoke us and force us to do anything that the right wing press could use against us. In fact all of those people who criticise us for our inaction are agents of the great imperialist dog - terrified of our manly communism. So, comrades, form up, get the placards up the front, let's really let them have it this time. Chant after me as I lead you up this mountain and down the other side: "una solucion, revolucion..."

by Amused Wed Aug 06, 2003 15:46

Looks like the SWP is launching the Summer counteroffensive. After their massive failure to recruit in the anti-war movement now they try with the good old marxist forums. Maybe one or two inesperienced youngsters will turn up, who knows? I can't come, but I would like to ask one question: would Che Guevara have condemned direct action against an imperialist war as elitist?

by The Insider Wed Aug 06, 2003 16:15

down at the dole office we rarely talk of anything else but Che and his politics.

by deformed worker Wed Aug 06, 2003 16:21

The SWP are very wrong in their organisational approach. They have dissolved their branches. Their branches are now GR every 2 weeks and Marxist Forums every other week.

This leaves no room for internal debate, no room for building the SWP etc.

I am tempted to turn up to this 'Marxist Forum' and put forward what the SWP really think about Cuba and Che. They think that Cuba is Capitalist and it's helath system shouldn't be defended!

The SWP have an absolutly aweful position on Cuba. When the USSR fell they welcomed and cheered on the like of Yeltsin bringing in his 'reforms'.

by The Insider Wed Aug 06, 2003 16:47

"The SWP have an absolutly aweful position on Cuba. When the USSR fell they welcomed and cheered on the like of Yeltsin bringing in his 'reforms'"

Ah yes, Glorious Cuba. Land of milk, honey, crackdowns on dissidents and starving people jumping onto feeble rafts and sailing seventy miles to enter the Capitalist hellhole of the USA. What is wrong with these people? Don't they know a workers paradise when they see one?

And don't get me started on those mad Berliners cheering the downfall of the berlin Wall and communism. Crazy fools. The workers revolution must be protected from these mad worker types!

by Ray Wed Aug 06, 2003 16:53

If Trotsky was in charge of Cuba, dissidents wouldn't be imprisoned, they'd be shot.
I suppose, depending on your religious beliefs, that's one way of getting a workers' paradise.

by Ivan Caramba - IBC Wed Aug 06, 2003 17:09

Slanderous. Dissidents were only shot during the civil war and in the ensuing period when the peace was unstable and some anti-bolshevik anarchists were playing into the hands of the white generals who were waiting to 'help' Kronstadt with french funding. What would you have done Ray, wait until the counterrevolution was complete and millions of Socialists and Anarchists were slaughtered and then started all over again?

by IMC reader Wed Aug 06, 2003 17:12

workers would be forced to spend Saturday afternoons selling Socialist Worker at street corners for no pay. They'd get so pissed off that in a couple of weeks they would have the SWP cadre on the run or on a plane to Miami.

by Ray Wed Aug 06, 2003 17:24

Ivan Caramba is right of course. Trotsky only shot dissidents during the civil war "and in the ensuing period when the peace was unstable". An ensuing period that just happened to last until Trotsky was thrown out of power. Funny that.

by sean Wed Aug 06, 2003 19:11 moan bitch whine,

moan, whine, bitch,moan, whine, bitch,i hate the swp,moan, whine, bitch,i have nothing better to do then to attack them on the internet,moan, whine, bitch,what me organise?you must be mad,im independant maaaaaan,moan, whine, bitch,dam them for having a larger membership then anyone else on the left,moan, whine, bitch,the swp are a cult,moan, whine, bitch,how dare they attempt to set up gr and actually attract people to the anti capitalist movement,dont they know its an exclusive club maaaaan,moan, whine, bitch.

by no 6 Wed Aug 06, 2003 19:54

Largest? what wonderland are you selling your papers in. In your world the SWP is a might fierce organisation.

SWP membership is brought to you by the fine people who gave us the Ansbacher accounts.

by anarcho Wed Aug 06, 2003 21:24 anarcho at geocities dot com

"Slanderous. Dissidents were only shot during the civil war and in the ensuing period when the peace was unstable"

Well, that's okay then! Really, even if it was true (and it's not -- dissidents were shot *after*
and *before* the civil war started) it says alot that a Marxist considers it to be okay to shoot unarmed people you have arrested.

"and some anti-bolshevik anarchists were playing into the hands of the white generals who were waiting to 'help' Kronstadt with french funding."

What is this nonsense? Kronstadt was a spontaneous revolt by the masses. It had nothing
to do with "white generals," as has been proven
time and time again. See "An Anarchist FAQ" on
this:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH5.html

It's amazing the Marxists just don't seem to
know basic historic facts!

"What would you have done Ray, wait until the counterrevolution was complete and millions of Socialists and Anarchists were slaughtered and then started all over again?"

The Bolsheviks *were* as much part of the
counter-revolution as the Whites. And it seems
to me that our Bolshevik friend has to explain why shooting "dissidents" (i.e. socialists like the Mensheviks, anarchists, etc.) stopped the
"counter-revolution." Surely fighting the whites
did that, not repressing the masses and destroying their freedoms and power?

Or was the working class part of the "counterrevolution" as well? Looking at what the Bolsheviks did to it, you have to draw that conclusion!

by SWMer Watcher Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:49

Let's get it clear- the SWP exagerate their membership. First of all they have a very low threshhold before someone becomes a member, secondly they don't remove inactive people from membership lists (ie people that have left, have not paid any sub etc.)

SWP have a revolving door membership. When someone has been messed up and put off left wing politics by them they still include them as a member!

In my opinion the SP would be bigger then the SWP. Not only in membership but also in terms of support from ordinary people and Trade Unionists.

by Ray Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:50

How many members does the SP have, 'SWMer Watcher'?

by Ivan Caramba - IBC Thu Aug 07, 2003 12:03

"what is this nonsense? Kronstadt was a spontaneous revolt by the masses. It had nothing
to do with "white generals," as has been proven"

There is a document held at the university of Columbia which actually prooves that white emigres were planning to take advantage of the situation developing at Kronstadt. They were in discussion with the more than eager French government for aid.

by Andrew Thu Aug 07, 2003 12:13

Don't be an asshole Ivan, how can a document showing the whites were hoping to take **ADVANTAGE** of the rising be proof of their **INVOLVEMENT** in it. Duh!

by Ivan Caramba - IBC Thu Aug 07, 2003 13:57

The document had information on the brewing revolt that could only have been known to someone involved, who was actively trying to influence events.
Even if we accept your point, the fact that the revolt would have been used by the imperialist powers if successful is reason enough to put it down.

by Andrew Thu Aug 07, 2003 14:18

Cause it sounds not. It's speculation about possible future events.

Given that the population of Kronsdadt was in the 10's of thousands I'd be rather surprised if they whites did not have some agent there. That old czarist general that Trotsky imposed on the garrison would be an obvious candidate for instance.

RESOLUTION
OF THE GENERAL MEETING OF CREWS OF THE 1ST AND 2ND BATTLESHIP BRIGADES, OCCURING 1 MARCH, 1921

Having heard the report of the crew representatives, sent to the City of Petrograd by the General Meeting of ships' crews for clarification of the situation there, we resolve:

1. In view of the fact that the present Soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants, to immediately hold new elections to the Soviets by secret ballot, with freedom of pre-election agitation for all workers and peasants.

2. Freedom of speech and press for workers and peasants, anarchists and left socialist parties.

3. Freedom of assembly of both trade unions and peasant associations.

4. To convene not later than March 10th, 1921 a non-party Conference of workers, soldiers and sailors of the city of Petrograd, of Kronstadt, and of Petrograd province.

5. To free all political prisoners of socialist parties, and also all workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors imprisoned in connection with worker and peasant movements.

6. To elect a Commission for the review of the cases of those held in prisons and concentration camps.

7. To abolish all POLITOTDELS, since no single party should be able to have such privileges for the propaganda of its ideas and receive from the state the means for these ends. In their place must be established locally elected cultural-educational commissions, for which the state must provide resources.

8. To immediately remove all anti-smuggling roadblock detachments.

9. To equalize the rations of all laborers, with the exception of those in work injurious to health.

10. To abolish the Communist fighting detachments in all military units, and also the various guards kept in factories and plants by the communists, and if such guards or detachments are needed, they can be chosen in military units from the companies, and in factories and plants by the discretion of the workers.

11. To give the peasants full control over their own land, to do as they wish, and also to keep cattle, which must be maintained and managed by their own strength, that is, without using hired labor.

12. We appeal to all military units, and also to the comrade cadets to lend their support to our resolution.

13. We demand that all resolutions be widely publicized in the press.

14. To appoint a travelling bureau for control.

15. To allow free handicraft manufacture by personal labor.

The resolution was passed by the Brigade Meeting unanimously with two abstentions.

PETRICHENKO, President of the Brigade Meeting
PEREPELKIN, Secretary

The resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority of the entire Kronstadt garrison.

VASILIEV, President

Together with Comrade Kalinin, Vasiliev votes against the resolution.

by Sean Thu Aug 07, 2003 17:28

Why is there so much hate towards the British SWP and the SWP in the south of Ireland on these posts and why the attacks on republicians looking for political status

by anarcho Thu Aug 07, 2003 22:44 anarcho at geocities dot com

"The document had information on the brewing revolt that could only have been known to someone involved, who was actively trying to influence events."

Read the document. It talks of a general resentment against the Bolshevik dictatorship at Kronstadt which was likely to result in a revolt sometime in 1921. As such, it could be written by anyone who knew a few sailors or talked to them or someone who knew sailors.

And the response of the White groups? Well, to quote the historian Paul Avrich who uncovered the document: the revolt "caught the emigres off balance" and that "[n]othing . . . had been done to implement the Secret Memorandum, and the warnings of the author were fully borne out." Moreover, "Nothing has come to light to show that the Secret Memorandum was ever put into practice or that any links had existed between the emigres and the sailors before the revolt. On the contrary, the rising bore the earmarks of spontaneity" [Kronstadt 1921]

For more on the document and why our Bolshevik is wrong about it, visit:

H.5.6 Was the Kronstadt revolt a White plot?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH5.html#sech56

"Even if we accept your point, the fact that the revolt would have been used by the imperialist powers if successful is reason enough to put it down."

yes, the same argument that was used to crush the opposition groups, workers' strikes, soviet democracy, freedom of speach and all the other basic rights which the Bolsheviks destroyed.

Little wonder the Russian Revolution failed! With an attitude like that, Bolshevik party dictatorship is the logical conclusion. As Lenin and Trotsky proved...

And I'm sure the Stalinists used the same argument to crush the Hungry 1956 rebellion...

by Ivan Caramba - IBC Fri Aug 08, 2003 14:23

I can see you are too busy in fairy land to face the reality of a revolutionary situation.
Andrew yes I have read it. I re-read it after your original 'criticism' just so I could be sure.

Anarcho, Paul Avrich came to the conclusion after weighing up all the facts that the Kronstad mutineers had some genuine grievances but ultimately the Bolsheviks had no other option but to suppress the rising, it was 'a tragic necessity'.

by Andrew Fri Aug 08, 2003 15:13

And there you have it folks. If you have some 'genuine grievances' after the revolution and the cheek to do something about it you can look forward to the firing squad or the gulag courtesy of the SWP/IBT/SP/Sparts/etc.

by Ivan the terrible - IBC Fri Aug 08, 2003 15:23

IBC andrew, IBC. The IBT are petty sectarian sewer dwellers.
Anyhow Andrew I wouldn't dream of shooting you. Not when I will have an army to do it for me. LOL!!!

by Ivan Fri Aug 08, 2003 15:39

Ivan I hope you intended that last bit to sound like something from 'Life of Brian'. And keep wanking off to the idea of having a pet firing squad, it's giving the rest of a good laugh!

by Andrew Fri Aug 08, 2003 16:41

That last comment was obviously by me. I meant to put 'Ivan' in the subject line rather then the author line.

On a related matter I thought I was something of an expert on all the trot splinter groups. Now the IBT are a nutty New Zealand split from the Sparts but who the hell are the IBC? The first two initals are I presume 'International' 'Bolshevik' as with the IBT. What does the 'C' stand for. Current? Communist? Cuddles?

I think we should be told!

by Garvin Harte Fri Aug 08, 2003 18:01

Why are the SWP giving the impression that Ché was a great revolutionary etc when in reality the SWP believe Che to be a capitalist polititian.

by anarcho Sat Aug 09, 2003 14:49 anarcho at geocities dot com

"I can see you are too busy in fairy land to face the reality of a revolutionary situation."

So workers' democracy in "a revolution situation" is "fairy land"? Nice to know.

And, yes, Kronstadt was a revolutionary situation. It was the last chance for the Russian working class to get control of its own revolution. The Bolsheviks crushed it as it had crushed working class revolt since early 1918. Now, if a "revolutionary situation" means workers' democracy is "in fairly land" does that mean the IBT rejects Lenin's "State and Revolution"? I hope so. Less hypocrisy is aways a good thing.

"Anarcho, Paul Avrich came to the conclusion after weighing up all the facts that the Kronstad mutineers had some genuine grievances but ultimately the Bolsheviks had no other option but to suppress the rising, it was 'a tragic necessity'."

Firstly, I think that Avrich is wrong to draw that conclusion, given the evidence in his book.

Secondly, this "tragic necessity" line contradicts your original position, which was it deserved to be put down as it was a White plot. You cannot have it both ways.

And I suppose that this exchange shows us who really has power under Bolshevism. If workers have "genuine grievances" and they get bullets in return, we know that "workers'power" simply means "party power" and anyone (like the workers!) who objects will get shot for saying so. Nice to know.

Not so much "in fairly land," more like in a Bolshevik nightmare. Let's learn from history rather than repeat it -- reject Bolshevism for the counter-revolution nonsense it is.

by Ivan Caramba - International Bolshevik Current Mon Aug 11, 2003 15:46

Tragic in that many of the insurgents were well meaning albeit backward peasant layers. Necessary in that Kronstadt was of significant strategic importance if captured by Imperialism (Kronstadt could not have survived without support from Imperialism) it would have spelled doom for red Petrograd. Necessary in that the SR's and more alarmingly Black Hundred elements were manipulating and milking the situation. A motion proposed by the Black Hundreds was even adopted by the mutineers!

Find a new Hobby Horse infantile anarcho!

by anarcho Mon Aug 11, 2003 21:52 anarcho at geocities dot com

"Tragic in that many of the insurgents were well meaning albeit backward peasant layers."

These "backward peasant layers" proclaimed basic socialist principle, such as soviet democracy and workers' control. Also, the bulk of the sailors had been there since 1917 (over 90%, in fact). So are you *really* saying that the sailors remained "backward" after going through the October revolution? And is advocating the proclaimed principles of October (soviet democracy and power) "backward"? I doubt it.

"Necessary in that Kronstadt was of significant strategic importance if captured by Imperialism (Kronstadt could not have survived without support from Imperialism) it would have spelled doom for red Petrograd."

Kronstadt could only survive if the revolt had spread to Red petrograd. Which, after all, was why the revolt happened -- in solidarity with the strike wave in Petrograd. Which was why the Bolsheviks turned Petrograd into an armed camp -- they could not afford for Kronstadt to link up with the strikers. Strikers whose demands the Kronstadts raised, incidentally.

"Necessary in that the SR's and more alarmingly Black Hundred elements were manipulating and milking the situation. A motion proposed by the Black Hundreds was even adopted by the mutineers!"

This "Black Hundred" motion was the one Andrew has quoted above. Why is it "Black Hundred"? Because the Bolsheviks said it was. So, of interest, which of the 15 points shows it is a "Black Hundred" motion? Is it the call for soviet democracy? For freedom of press and association for working class people and peasants? The opposition to wage labour in the countryside?

Go on, please let us know why the Kronstadt motion was a "Black Hundreds" motion. It should be interesting to see you justify this nonsense. I doubt that you can.

"Find a new Hobby Horse infantile anarcho!"

I will continue to tell the truth about Kronstadt until such time as pro-Bolsheviks stop lying about it. From this exchange, that is not going to happen any time soon! To tell the truth is a revolutionary act, after all.

And I loved the "infantile" bit -- really, do you even have to look at Lenin to find insults?

by anarchos` secret admirer Tue Aug 12, 2003 02:51

You go, anarcho!:)

by Ivan Caramba - IBC Tue Aug 12, 2003 14:44

"Kronstadt could only survive if the revolt had spread to Red petrograd. Which, after all, was why the revolt happened -- in solidarity with the strike wave in Petrograd."
Absolute nonsense, the strike wave in petrograd was of an economic character. When news of the Kronstadt mutiny spread to Petrograd the strikes stopped! Is this the action of a populace who wanted to overthrow the soviet government? In fact many of those involved in the strikes (including many from "the workers' opposition") crossed the ice to help suppress the insurgents. On your claim that 90% of the sailors had been stationed in Petrograd since 1917, this is a lie peretrated by Makhno and Emma Goldman who would have had no access to these records! The fact is that most of the Kronstadt sailors from 1917, being among the most revolutionary proletarians went straight to the front lines of the civil war, most perishing. The motion in question was proposed by members of the black hundreds therefore a black hundred motion. Kronstadt was a tempest in a tea-pot. There were many revolts accross peasant Russia due to starvation and famine caused by the civil war. Why not talk about those, or were they not ruthlessly enough suppressed for you? And if you don't like the word infantile, how about wanker?

by anarcho Tue Aug 12, 2003 23:52 anarcho at geocities dot com

I must note that our Bolshevik friend constantly refuses to answer basic questions I've raised. This is significant. But to answer the points he do raise...

"Absolute nonsense, the strike wave in petrograd was of an economic character. When news of the Kronstadt mutiny spread to Petrograd the strikes stopped! Is this the action of a populace who wanted to overthrow the soviet government?"

ignoring the fact that political demands were raised, I should point out that the response of the Bolsheviks show how wrong these comments were. If this is true, then why did the Bolsheviks turn Petrograd into an armed camp? Why was martial law declared? Could this not have affected the actions of the population? Let me quote Paul Avrich:

"On March 3 [the day after the revolt] the Petrograd Defence Committee, now vested with absolute power throughout the entire province, took stern measures to prevent any further disturbances. The city became a vast garrison, with troops patrolling in every quarter. Notices posted on the walls reminded the citizenry that all gatherings would be dispersed and those who resisted shot on the spot. During the day the streets were nearly deserted, and, with the curfew now set at 9 p.m., night life ceased altogether."

It looked like the Bolsheviks were not so sure of the Petrograd working class as their latter day followers are! Hardly surprising, because strikes were continuing in the biggest factories of Petrograd but the Bolsheviks acted quickly shut down some of the factories and started the re-registration of the workers. For workers to be locked out of a factory meant to be "automatically deprived of their rations." (Avrich)

The state of siege was finally lifted on the 22nd of March, five days after the crushing of Kronstadt. Could this have something to do with the strikes ending? Ultimately, the Bolsheviks had state power and guns. The workers did not. It is as simple as that.

For more on this visit:

H.5.10 Why did the Petrograd workers not support Kronstadt?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH5.html#sech510

"In fact many of those involved in the strikes (including many from 'the workers' opposition') crossed the ice to help suppress the insurgents."

The Workers' Opposition were *not* involved in the strikes. The strikes were spontaneous and came
as a shock to *all* the Bolsheviks. And while members of the Workers' Opposition *did* join the
attack on Kronstadt, it is unlikely that any triking workers were involved. Given that the Bolsheviks had to use troops to suppress the strikes, arming the strikers would have been silly of them. Now, do you have any *proof* of this assertion? I doubt it. The Bolsheviks relied on Red Army units, strengthened by more party members (and the threat of machine guns behind the troops!). They did not draft in striking workers from Petrograd.

"On your claim that 90% of the sailors had been stationed in Petrograd since 1917, this is a lie peretrated by Makhno and Emma Goldman who would have had no access to these records!"

Funnily enough, neither Goldman nor Makhno made any such claim. The figure of 90% plus actually comes from the work of a historian who *did* have access to the relevant records. Here is the relevant data.

Academic Israel Getzler investigated this issue and demonstrated that of those serving in the Baltic fleet on 1st January 1921 at least 75.5% were drafted before 1918. He argues that the "veteran politicised Red sailor still predominated in Kronstadt at the end of 1920" and presents more "hard statistical data" like that just quoted. He investigated the crews of the two major battleships, the Petropavlovsk and the Sevastopol. His findings are conclusive, showing that of the 2,028 sailors where years of enlistment are known, 93.9% were recruited into the navy before and during the 1917 revolution. Only 6.8% of the sailors were recruited in the years 1918-21 (including three who were conscripted in 1921) and they were the only ones who had not been there during the 1917 revolution. (Getzler, _Kronstadt_ 1917-1921, pp. 207-8)

Paul Avrich argues (in a review of Getzler's book) that "Getzler draws attention to the continuity in institutions, ideology, and personnel linking 1921 with 1917. In doing so he demolishes the allegation of Trotsky and other Bolshevik leaders that the majority of veteran Red sailors had, in the course of the Civil War, been replaced by politically retarded peasant recruits from the Ukraine and Western borderlands, thereby diluting the revolutionary character of the Baltic fleet. He shows, on the contrary, that no significant change had taken place in the fleet's political and social composition, that at least three-quarters of the sailors on active duty in 1921 had been drafted before 1918 and were drawn predominantly from Great Russian areas." (_Soviet Studies_, vol. XXXVI, 1984, pp. 139-40)

So much for anarchist "lies"! Here we have hard facts, unlike our comrades repeating of Trotsky's assertions.

"The fact is that most of the Kronstadt sailors from 1917, being among the most revolutionary proletarians went straight to the front lines of the civil war, most perishing."

Notice no evidence is made for this. In fact, the opposite is the case. While many did go to the front, the highly skilled nature of the Russian Battleships ensured that many had to stay to man them (and defend Petrograd). As the figures quoted above prove, most sailors had been there since 1917. For more this issue visit:

H.5.8 Did the rebellion involve new sailors?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH5.html#sech58

"The motion in question was proposed by members of the black hundreds therefore a black hundred motion."

Really? Where is the evidence that they were "members of the black hundreds"? The only people who claim this is the case were the Bolsheviks at the time. There is no evidence I know of that back up their claim. If you have *any* evidence of your claims, please provide it. Bolshevik assertions will not do.

Repeating Bolshevik lies is not remotely convincing, you do know that?

" Kronstadt was a tempest in a tea-pot. There were many revolts across peasant Russia due to starvation and famine caused by the civil war. Why not talk about those, or were they not ruthlessly enough suppressed for you?"

Oh, so Kronstadt *was* ruthlessly suppressed? Nice to know what we can expect if any modern-day
Bolsheviks seize power. If you protest against party dictatorship, you expect to be shoot -- even *after* you surrender...

Kronstadt is important because it was a peaceful revolt in favour of soviet democracy. It happened in solidarity with a wave of strikes in Petrograd, with the sailors raising many of the same demands of the workers. The reaction of the Bolsheviks says much about their ideology and the fact that by 1921 their dictatorship *over* the proletariat was such that a new revolution was required to get rid of it. But the other revolts, peasant and working class, are also important. Those at the time, and of course those that happened in 1918, 1919, 1920 and after Kronstadt as well. Kronstadt is just the most famous of Bolshevik repression of working class protest which dates back to at least the spring of
1918.

For more on this visit:

H.5 What was the Kronstadt Rebellion?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH5.html

Unlike our Bolshevik friend, this webpage relies on more substantial evidence than assertions by Trotsky and his followers...

"And if you don't like the word infantile, how about wanker?"

Now, that just makes you look like you cannot have a serious political discussion without resorting to insults. It also suggests that you know your position is weak and so have to resort to name calling, perhaps it will help draw attention away from the fact you have constantly avoided answering the various points I have raised.

by ivan caramba - ibc Wed Aug 13, 2003 09:58

you are the one arguing with someone called ivan caramba. lmao