It refers to the tabletop miniatures wargame "Warhammer 40 000" and the human factions' xenophobic faith in their emperor. The point being, of course, that fideism can justify just about anything.
Spirituality is one of those things I simply don't "get"; it seems to be a way for people to have their cake, er, deity, and only follow those religious rules they want to. I don't think it's terribly consistent, and it's usually expressed in such vague terms it might not mean anything at all.
But what fascinates me is the popularity of religion among the left - and not just the sort of religiosity "by default" that is the scourge of our times, but of enthusiastic, vocal religion being presented as completely leftists, and at least on the same footing as science (!). Then again, similar things happened in the revolutionary downswing after the 1905 revolution - empirio-criticism, bogostroitelstvo, and so on, and so on.
Indeed, comrade, you have to experience the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost, Jesus, some vague eclectic "revelation" or, I guess, the Light of the Astronomican in order to believe. But in the meantime, you should by all means treat religious statements as if they were true or at least probable. And when their inanity is pointed out, attack science with some pomo nonsense or though-guy ultra-"materialism".
The defensored fidei have still not responded to the thread... how is it that we get so many people like that? I can (sort of) understand that many members are religious, but I would have thought no one would actually defend religion on this site.
The vanguard party is not Leninist in it's origin. He gets it from Kautsky and the whole idea comes from the Communist Manifesto(where Marx/Engels state that the communists are the most conscious and militant section of the proletariat and the one that pushes the rest of the proletariat pushes the proletariat forward, and is the only part of the proletariat that clearly sees the conditions and results of the proletarian movement - i.e communists are the vanguard of the proletariat). Do not be fooled by the fabrications of the Stalinists and Anarchists.
The SL is the one I like the best. Their flinch on Haiti was a big mistake, but they did renounce it unambiguously. I was very involved in the SL in the late 70s through the late 80s. SL leadership has been very, shall we say, preemptive in dealing with even incipient opposition. Their press is consistently excellent. The IBT appears to be moribund in the US. They were formed by people that quit the SL, not the best of the best. Some of their points in disagreement with the SL have always seemed valid, if not justifying a separate organization. The IG, is led by the former editor of Workers Vanguard. I don't particularly like their stuff - the expulsion of Nordon and his partner Stamberg was really heavy handed. The basic line of all of these groups is within the bounds of Trotskyism. I think they should not exist as separate organizations. Revolutionary Regroupment is the product of a one person split from the IBT. He now has some co-thinkers in Brazil.
I've really enjoyed your posts. I've been trying to read up on my Trotskyism lately and I find the SL/IG/IBT to be the only groups out there putting out anything worth reading. What do you think of them?
