George H. Smith

Victory Speech of the Libertarian Party President-Elect, 1984

Recommended Posts

In 1976, I delivered a satirical speech for the LA Libertarian Supper Club. Titled "Victory Speech of the Libertarian Party President-Elect, 1984," this speech was printed by Sam Konkin as a supplement in "New Libertarian Weekly" (Oct. 31, 1976). As an early criticism of the LP and its policy of gradualism, this speech created something of a sensation among libertarians at the time, especially in LA circles, and it was even discussed by Murray Rothbard in an issue of "Libertarian Forum."

This piece is not available anywhere else on the Internet, and I haven't had a copy of it myself for over 20 years. Earlier today my old friend Jeff Riggenbach kindly scanned his copy and sent it to me as a .pdf file. At times this .pdf file is difficult to read at the edges, but this will do until I can type out a transcript.

Although set in 1984 (for obvious reasons), keep in mind that this was actually written in 1976. Therefore, any references past 1976 were purely a figment of my imagination.

This file also has a cartoon that was drawn of me while I gave the talk. I was 27 -- and, yes, I was actually thin at that point in my life. Ah, the good old days, when I could stuff myself and never gain weight. 8-)

If anyone cares to repost this file or otherwise copy it, feel free, so long as I am given credit. I am using a free hosting site to post this .pdf file, so it will only be up for 30 days. Here is the link:

http://freepdfhosting.com/b85fabbd76.pdf

Ghs

(EDIT: Note from MSK: Full text later added in this thread here.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first time I've seen this in this publication, but I vaguely recall reading a derivative piece or maybe a precis way back then. It was probably derivative. I'd like to see it as standard text.

--Brant

it may have been reprinted elsewhere and that's where I saw it--dunno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first time I've seen this in this publication, but I vaguely recall reading a derivative piece or maybe a precis way back then. It was probably derivative. I'd like to see it as standard text.

--Brant

it may have been reprinted elsewhere and that's where I saw it--dunno

This speech was never reprinted, but Murray Rothbard quoted parts of it in a 1980 issue of Libertarian Forum.

http://lewrockwell.c...othbard285.html

Scroll down to section #19, "George Smith's Prophetic Satire."

Ghs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This file also has a cartoon that was drawn of me while I gave the talk. I was 27 -- and, yes, I was actually thin at that point in my life.

No pony tail? Are those dimples, or tears running down your cheeks?

GHS76.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This file also has a cartoon that was drawn of me while I gave the talk. I was 27 -- and, yes, I was actually thin at that point in my life.

No pony tail? Are those dimples, or tears running down your cheeks?

GHS76.jpg

I didn't begin to grow my hair long until around 1985. I was working on a book on the history of state education, which I was never able to finish (owing to lack of funding), and I got tired of friends asking the dreaded question that no writer wants to hear: "Have you finished the book yet?"

I therefore decided to let my hair grow until the book was done, and I told my friends: "If I haven't cut my hair, you will know that the book is not finished, so don't ask me about it."

I don't know about the "tears" in the drawing. You would need to ask the artist about that. I have no idea who he or she was.

How about that shirt? I was wearing a tie-dyed silk shirt, of the sort that was still popular in 1976, at least in Hollywood. And there was no drape on the lectern; that was a bit of artistic license.

Ghs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2014 at 2:10 AM, matimatik said:

Hi George,

there was part two of your "speech" announced in NLW as Supplement #8, but it seems to me it was never published there (I checked the whole volume of NLW I have at hand). Can you remember whether you wrote it and if so, where was it published?

Also I've uploaded OCRed version of this supplement, should anyone be interested

https://gist.github.com/anonymous/10989073

For some reason, this guy (IP from Russia) wants me to remove his account and this post (the only one he made).

OK.

I deleted it all.

:evil:  :)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For some reason, this guy (IP from Russia) wants me to remove his account and this post (the only one he made).

OK.

I deleted it all.

:evil:  :)

Michael

As Spock would say... curious.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Gradualism" as too radical for the gradualists.

Another example of the fallacy of top-downism. All "isms" are to be or are imposed from the top down. Freedom is from the bottom up. Freedom is not an "ism."

Objectivism . . . ?

Capitalism . . . ?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Individualism?

:evil:  :)

Michael

One of the chief characteristics of humans is that hey live in communities  and humans benefit each other through mutual defense and specialization of labor. Humans are very far from "lone wolves".  Individualism tends to be over weighted in accounting for human doings.  Very few things, nowadays,  are created by line inventors or artists.   We are very interconnected (thank you Internet) and rather interdependent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been bouncing around the Internet to see what I can find since George posted this link on Facebook (and even thanked me :) ).

I've discovered that former OL member matimatik is the moniker of Ivan Burbakov, whoever that is. :) 

There's a Soundcloud 4-part audio under this moniker of a debate from former years (apparently 1982) with George and Antman. Click on the link to go there and listen. 

Political vs. Nonpolitical Action Debate – Antman V. Smith – Bill White, Moderator

Here's the blurb:

Quote

George H. Smith has tried to convey the message that Politics and libertarianism are inconsistent. One of his earliest attacks on the Libertarian Party was a satirical "Victory Speech of the Libertarian Party President-Elect, 1984" which appeared in Supplement 4 of New Libertarian Weekly (no. 46, October 31, 1976). Smith tried to show why a Libertarian President would be involved in all sorts of philosophical predicaments (how would he deal with tax evaders, drug smugglers, victims of victimless crime laws, etc.?). This criticism was followed up by a seriously theoretical piece entitled Party Dialogue (New Libertarian, Vol. 4, No. 8, Dec. 1980 - Feb. 1981; and reprinted Baltimore: The Voluntaryists, 1982; see reverse of this pamphlet for ordering instructions) and by an exchange of letters to the editor between Less Antman, a well-known member of the California LP and Smith, in New Libertarian (Vol. 5, no. 9, April-June, 1981). His most recent foray against the LP occurred at the California LP Convention on board the Queen Elizabeth II in February 1982. Here he continued his debate with Antman under the title "Political Action vs. Non Political Action" in which they exchanged their views on the validity of political action for libertarians. (See Tapes 651 A and B by Liberty Audio Forum, 824 West Broad Street, Richmond, Va. 23220.) Smith's efforts against the LP have been instrumental in the formation of The Voluntaryists, whose purpose is to spread the message that libertarianism must be propagated by non-political means.

-- Form A Voluntaryist Bibliography, Annotated by Carl Watner

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2012 at 1:01 AM, George H. Smith said:

If anyone cares to repost this file or otherwise copy it, feel free, so long as I am given credit.

It just occured to me, why the hell not? :) 

Here goes--the text is by George below:

Quote

##Victory Speech of the Libertarian Party President-Elect, 1984

####by George H. Smith

####Introduction

The day is November 7, 1984, just a few days after the national elections. The Libertarian Party has won the Presidency by a large margin, and LP candidates have won sweeping victories in Congress as well. Anticipating complete libertarian control of the Presidency, the Senate, and the House, the libertarian President-Elect is about to address a national television audience, thanking the people for his victory and outlining his plans for the future.

My fellow Americans. It is with a joyous heart that I speak to you this evening, on the eve of our glorious victory. Not only have you elected the first libertarian president, but you have elected a libertarian congress as well, insuring complete operation in our quest for liberty.

We stand at the threshold of freedom. Our country, ravaged for decades by political abuse and economic turmoil, is about to enter a new era of individual rights, limited government, and prosperity. We, the Libertarian Party, will hold true to our principles, accepting no quarter and no compromise.

Unfortunately, as you know, our country is threatened from without and from within. We face foreign threats from Russia and China, and we face domestic threats from inflation, depression and unemployment. The Democrats and Republicans were unable to stem the tide of economic ruin, and the Libertarian Party rode the wave of dissent and despair fostered by the Great Depression of 1981. And now we hold the reigns of government. It is an awesome responsibility—the people are looking to us for leadership—and we must steer our course with wisdom and prudence.

The policy of my administration will be one of openness and candor. I will not lie to you, nor will Congress. We will not tell you that things are better than they are. We are not only a party of principle, but a party of truth as well.

I appear before you this evening to tell you of my vision for this country and to unfold my plan for liberty. We must restore liberty to this country and thereby restore prosperity. On this we are all agreed. But let us not forget that we live in the real world. We live in a world of brute facts that cares nothing for our ideals. Therefore, we must face the fact that the devastation caused by political meddling has created an extremely complicated situation. Many of our citizens depend entirely on government jobs and handouts. As much as we desire liberty, we cannot sacrifice these innocent people in a blind repeal of laws. As the Party has emphasized for many years, we uphold

###“President” G.H. Smith [FIXME: its a caption for a photo]

the policy of gradualism, whereby coercive laws are chiseled away, bit by bit, until we hone the government down to its proper size. This is the only sane and moral policy.

I must emphasize this, unfortunately, because there are those who criticize our gradualism. Some of our former comrades who, before the purge of 1980, also referred to themselves as “libertarians,” continue vociferously to campaign for the immediate and total repeal of all unjust laws. In upholding gradual repeal, they say, the Party must necessarily defend and enforce those unjust laws that remain. This is true—we have never denied it. So many people have become dependent on government money and services, that to abolish them outright would clearly lead to disorder, rioting, and starvation. The good of society requires that such laws be phased out in increments, step by step, while we prepare the country for freedom. This is the wisdom of gradualism.

“We are unwilling to sacrifice lives to the tyranny of false freedom, in a country where people cannot as yet handle their freedom in a proper manner.”
But still we are assailed by reckless visionaries who scream for the immediate abolition of taxation—the root, they say, of most government evil. Now, taxation is wrong, of course; but to repeal all taxation would lead to the collapse of national defense, police services, welfare, and many other essential services. Thousands, perhaps millions, would die. We are unwilling to sacrifice lives to the tyranny of false freedom, in a country where people cannot as yet handle their freedom in a proper manner.

Indeed, it was our policy of gradualism that led to our massive support by the American people. Our Party, founded twelve short years ago, has accomplished the impossible task of moving from a mere handful of libertarians to a Party numbering in the millions. Over sixty percent of registered voters belong to the Libertarian Party—over sixty percent! How did we achieve this miracle? With our sane policy of gradualism.

When elderly people complained that a libertarian government would deprive them of Social Security, we told them “no”—that their Social Security would continue as before, financed from tax revenues. Social Security will be chiseled away in painless steps; to abolish it is only a long-term objective. Thus did elderly people become libertarians.

When welfare recipients complained that a libertarian government would deprive them of welfare, we told them “no”—that their welfare would continue as before, financed from tax revenues. Welfare will be chiseled away in painless steps; to abolish it is only a long-term objective. Thus did welfare recipients become libertarians.

When labor unions complained that a libertarian government would deprive them of their privileges on which they had become financially dependent, we told them “no”—that their privileges would continue as before. Privileges will be chiseled away in painless steps; to abolish them is only a long-term objective. Thus did the labor unions become libertarian.

When taxi drivers, bus drivers, utility employees, and others who benefit from government enforced monopolies, complained that a libertarian government would hurt them financially, we told them “no”—that their monopolies would continue as before. Government monopolies will be chiseled away in painless steps; to abolish them is only a long-term objective. Thus did taxi drivers, bus drivers, utility employees, and others become libertarians.

When military personnel complained that a libertarian government, with its isolationist foreign policy, would drastically curtail military spending, and thus result in a massive loss of jobs, we told them “no”—that military spending would continue as before. Interventionism will be chiseled away in painless steps; isolationism is only a long-term objective. Thus did military personnel become libertarians.

“Therefore, my first presidential recommendation to the Congress will be to freeze all current laws and regulations on the federal, state, and municipal levels, so that a thorough investigation may be launched before the process of repeal is begun.”
And when law enforcement officials complained that a libertarian government, with its repeal of victimless crimes, would deprive many policemen of their careers and livelihood, we told them “no”—that their enforcement of victimless crimes would continue as before. Victimless crime laws will be chiseled away in painless steps; to abolish them is only a long-term objective. Thus did policemen become libertarians.

And so went our brilliant strategy, reaching into every aspect of American life and creating libertarians by the millions.

Our struggle has not been easy; it has been fraught with opposition and difficulties at every turn, not only by our opponents, but my fellow libertarians as well. When we organized in 1972, with the purpose of spreading the libertarian message, our task seemed hopeless, and there were skeptics within our own ranks who looked with a jaundiced eye upon a libertarian political party. In those early days, our energy was matched only by our naivete, and it was not until 1976 that we blossomed as a political party worthy of the name. In that pivotal year, you will recall, our presidential candidate wisely rejected two men—one a homosexual, the other a tax evader—as his running mates, realizing that the Libertarian Party could not afford to become identified with unpopular causes. Moreover, in that year, we subordinated our goal of education to the goal of electing libertarians to political office; and, accordingly, we adopted the strategy of winning votes by dealing with limited issues as they arose, while not stating our long-range objectives. This avoided our being tagged as wide-eyed radicals, which would have destroyed our chances of victory.

Heartened by the many states in which we were placed on the ballot, libertarians increased their efforts, strengthened by the practical knowledge of the political arena gained in the ’76 campaign. 1978 was a critical year for our platform, for it was then that we consciously articulated and defended our theory of gradualism, whereby the State will be chiseled away, bit by bit, until it is reduced to its moral foundation. Again, there were dissenters in our midst, who complained because we did not favor the immediate repeal of unjust laws, especially taxation.

But the year 1980 will go down as one of our most significant. It was then, at our national convention, that we publicly condemned tax evasion and the disobedience of other invasive laws, arguing with irrefutable logic that such measures were necessary, even under a libertarian government, until the State was sufficiently chiseled away. Their immediate repeal or widespread disobedience would result in social chaos; and the LP spoke out boldly and forthrightly in favor of gradualism, laying to rest the fear of many of our critics that a libertarian government would lead to disaster.

1980 was also our year of ordeal by fire. Our stand against tax rebellion, coupled with the purging from our rants of all known tax resistors and others who wished to thwart the law, turned more libertarians against us. These, our former allies turned enemies, refused to progress with the times, and adapt themselves to the inescapable reality of political life. Splinter groups were organized, and anti-LP groups sprung up like mushrooms. Our very existence was threatened by dissension from within. But we were too strong and too determined not to waver one iota from our principles. Those who wished to compromise our principle of gradualism were defeated, and we, the party of principle, continued our march toward victory, which at that point was inevitable.

“We truly intend to establish freedom eventually. We are therefore impelled to use our special knowledge of tax resistors and methods in an effort to stop their rebellion. They must serve as models to the rest of the country.”
Of course, we in the Libertarian Party have our differences, and in assimilating over half of the American voters into our ranks, we represent a broad spectrum of opinion. But our unity and strength were demonstrated dramatically at our convention this year, when there was intense rivalry between the Hubert Humphrey libertarians and the Jerry Brown libertarians. Thanks largely to the efforts of the Lester Maddox faction of the LP, reconciliation was achieved, and our party united behind its candidates and sweeped them to victory.

We speak of noble goals, our opponents say, of liberty and rights, but what will we do to achieve them? What will the policy of gradualism mean in practice? It is that question that I will now answer.

Because of the complex and intricate network of laws and regulations that permeate our system, we must approach their repeal cautiously. We may repeal one law, or one regulation, only to find that it has a disastrous effect on other parts of the economy. We must not act in haste. Therefore, my first presidential recommendation to the Congress will be to freeze all current laws and regulations on the federal, state, and municipal levels, so that a thorough investigation may be launched before the process of repeal is begun. We cannot afford to have maverick congressman get carried away with their power and indulge in an orgy of reckless repeal of laws, for which our nation will suffer.

Since there will be no immediate cutback of laws and regulations, additional money will be needed to finance our investigations. Therefore, my second proposal to Congress will be to raise the taxes just enough to support the necessary bureaus and committees that will undertake this noble and important work. To those of you who shirk at this temporary increase in taxation, rest assured that it is for all of our long-range good.

Then I will submit to Congress a proposed list of new agencies needed to investigate the specific steps our gradualism should take. I cannot give you all of the details here of course—this is a matter for specialists—but I will list a few significant items, so you can see for yourself that the Party takes its gradualism seriously, and that we intend to move forward immediately with bold, innovative steps.

First, we will need an agency to list and categorize the millions of laws and regulations now on the books. This will be the Federal Bureau of Legislative Compilation. It will be staffed by a competent, hard-working crew of no more than 500 persons; and, with the efficiency of modern computers, they should complete their work within a few short years.

“We cannot have libertarians defying a libertarian government—the potential consequences are too great. Thus, to aid you in this noble cause, we have established the special committee referred to earlier—the Anti-Gradualist Neutralization Committee—which will gladly accept lists of libertarians who seek to sabotage our plans.”
Second, we will need a bureau to evaluate and assess the relative merits of the data compiled by the Federal Bureau of Legislative Compilation. This will be the Federal Bureau of Assessment, or FBA for short. It will be the function of the FBA to decide which laws and regulations, from an ethical viewpoint, should be the first to go.

Third, we will need a bureau to work in conjunction with the FBA, whose function will be to predict the probable effects of eliminating particular laws and regulations. This will be the Bureau of Legislative Termination, or BLT for short. The BLT will have several departments, including the Dept. of Monetary Maladjustment (to predict the probably effects of repeal on money), the Dept. of Global Contingency (to predict the effects on foreign policy), and the Dept. of laissez-faire regulation (to predict the effects on trade).

Fourth, it is essential that gradualism be distributed as equally as possible, without discrimination or favoritism. To repeal laws in one sector of the economy, while leaving laws in another sector, will obviously lead to unfair economic advantage by some persons or businessmen. If, for instance, we repeal some taxes but not others, we must be careful to equalize the remaining taxes to the greatest extent possible. This is a complicated and delicate task. For it we will require the Bureau of Equal Gradualization. This Bureau will handle all complaints of discrimination. A special committee within the Bureau of Equal Gradualization, the Expendable Liberties Committee, will decide on borderline cases, where it is unclear whose liberties should be sacrificed to whom.

Fifth, we will establish the Bureau of Ways and Means, whose function will be to determine the actual workings and specifics of gradualism. Among other things, it will have a Dept. of Specification, which determines who is gradualized against; a Dept. of Duration, which determines how long they are gradualized against; and a Dept. of Gradation, which determines the severity of gradualization.

Finally, we must deal firmly with those who would interfere with our blueprint for liberty. For this we will establish a special task-force, The Anti-Gradualists Neutralization Committee, which will determine the most effective means to counter those malcontents and subversives who would sabotage our plan for liberty. As part of the Anti-Gradualist Neutralization Committee, there will be a special group called the Committee for Model Gradualism, which will endeavor to convince all libertarians to set the pace in our gradualist plans. If libertarians above all do not see the wisdom and necessity of gradualism, it is unlikely that the less enlightened populace will see it either. Therefore, we must single out those libertarians who would thwart our gradualism and then educate them to our way of thinking. They must be discouraged from the indiscriminate breaking of laws. Now that the Libertarian Party is in power, they may think to themselves, we run no risk in tax evasion. But let there be no misunderstanding; they are wrong. We cannot abolish taxes immediately, as was pointed out before. We must therefore continue to enforce them. A tax revolt on a massive scale would be disastrous to our gradualist policy. We must be unyielding in our tax policy; libertarians more than anyone else should not be permitted, through tax evasion, to destroy the only hope of liberty in this country for centuries. They must be dealt with swiftly and severely, so the rest of the country can see that the LP is firmly committed to the principle of gradualism, and that it will not favor its own ranks in the enforcement of gradualism.

Fortunately, we are in an advantageous position to detect tax evaders. You will recall that, until a few years ago, there were many tax evaders within the LP itself. During that period, we learned who these people were and what methods they used. Of course, we often sympathized with them, since they were rebelling against an unjust government. But now the Libertarian Party has established a just government. We truly intend to establish freedom, eventually. We are therefore impelled to use our special knowledge of tax resistors and methods in an effort to stop their rebellion. They must serve as models to the rest of the country.

In other words, we libertarians must clean our own house first; we must set the stage for gradualism. Therefore, I wish to make a personal appeal to all libertarians in the television audience this evening. Please work with your President and your Congress in our struggle for freedom. Become a model law abiding citizen for the sake of gradualism, even if you personally disagree with many of the current laws. Above all do not cheat on your taxes. Remember that your tax dollars will now go for the cause of freedom, the cause for which we have all struggled for twelve years. This is the first thing you can do to help your elected representatives.

The second thing is of equal, or perhaps even greater, importance. Many of you undoubtedly have libertarian friends who do not appreciate what the Libertarian Party has accomplished. They will, they say, continue to break whatever unjust laws they can, if they think they won’t get caught. Therefore, my fellow libertarians, I implore you, in the name of liberty, talk to these misguided comrades—persuade them of their folly—persuade them that full obedience to the present laws is necessary at this time in order to chisel away the government. And if you cannot persuade them, then it is your painful duty to report them to the appropriate authorities. This is especially true in the event of tax evasion. We cannot have libertarians defying a libertarian government—the potential consequences are too great. Thus, to aid you in this noble cause, we have established the special committee referred to earlier—the Anti-Gradualist Neutralization Committee—which will gladly accept lists of libertarians who seek to sabotage our plans. Send your list of libertarian law breakers directly to The Anti-Gradualist Neutralization Committee, Box 1984, Washington, D.C. This committee will move into action immediately as I take office. Of course, libertarians have never asked for self-sacrifice, nor do we ask for it now. We do not expect you to take your valuable time and effort ferreting out law-breakers without compensation. Therefore, for each name submitted that leads to a conviction, we will pay the informant $50. If the conviction is for tax evasion, and if the evader is a libertarian, we will pay $100. We expect this plan, more than any other, to lead to a unified effort by libertarians to carry through the policy of gradualism.

Therefore, my fellow libertarians, think back to your comrades who evaded taxes, think back to the many discussions in which they confided in you in the many ways they avoided taxation, think of their names and of the names of their friends they may have mentioned, and compile a list. Once again, the address is The AntiGradualists Neutralization Committee, box 1984, Washington, D.C. Not only will you be promoting the cause of freedom, but you will make a profit as well, what could be more libertarian!

In closing, I wish to reveal what is undoubtedly the happiest news of all. Now that liberty is within our grasp, some of you may be worried about losing it once again. The price of freedom, as we know, is eternal vigilance. But worry no more. The Libertarian Party, devoted to freedom, is in power, and we cannot subject human liberty to a majority vote. No one has the right to take your liberty from you; and the only possible opposition to the LP would come from those special interest groups who wish to violate your rights. Therefore, we shall not continue the farce of national elections; now that freedom has arrived, there is no need to vote. Voting against us can only serve the cause of tyranny, and we are dedicated to protect you against tyranny at all costs. Hence, with the cooperation of Congress, we shall pass a constitutional amendment to freeze the present government, and abolish all future elections. Not only will this guarantee your freedom, but it will give us the needed time to implement our plans. The Party of Liberty is here; the rest is a matter of time and detail.

It is ironic, is it not, that in this year of 1984—a year so long dreaded as an Orwellian nightmare—liberty has triumphed over tyranny. We have the opportunity within our grasp; let us move ahead with vigor and determination, never swerving from our gradualism and the eventual withering away . . .pardon me, chiseling away . . .of the State. Yes, my fellow Americans, we will, with God’s help, make 1984 a year to remember.

A more serious discussion on the problems of a Libertarian Party will follow in Part II, NLW Supplement 5, scheduled to appear in New Libertarian Weekly 50.    —George    H.Smith

###First of Two Parts

George H. Smith is the author of Atheism: The Case Against God and is currently Director of the “Forum for Philosophical Studies” in Los Angeles. In addition to a monthly lecture program, the Forum sponsors a number of courses and seminars, including “The Fundamentals of Reasoning” and “The Ideas of Liberty.” Upcoming courses by the Forum will include “A History of Western Atheism and Religious Dissent” and “The Philosophical Foundations of Free Market Economics.”

The Forum recently opened a suite of offices in the L.A. area. Those who wish further information, or who would like to be placed on the Forum mailing list, should write to Wendy Grosscup, Business Manager, Forum for Philosophical Studies, 6725 Sunset Blvd., Suite 500, Los Angeles, Ca.

Copies of this publication are being made available by the following:

Libertarian Supper Club of Los Angeles 12536 Woodbine Street Los Angeles, CA 90066

As I understand it from George's text quoted above, this is the full humorous part and Part 2 was to be a serious part. So the satire is complete. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I've been bouncing around the Internet to see what I can find since George posted this link on Facebook (and even thanked me :) ).

I've discovered that former OL member matimatik is the moniker of Ivan Burbakov, whoever that is. :) 

There's a Soundcloud 4-part audio under this moniker of a debate from former years (apparently 1982) with George and Antman. Click on the link to go there and listen. 

Political vs. Nonpolitical Action Debate – Antman V. Smith – Bill White, Moderator

Here's the blurb:

Michael

Michael,

Thanks for posting my debate with Antman. I had forgotten about this debate and had no idea it was available online.

Btw, you asked me in an email if I ever wrote the second part of my critique of gradualism, which was to be published in Sam Konkin's zine. The answer is no. Sam never paid anything for articles, and at the time it was probably unrealistic for me to devote considerable time to writing a freebie.

Ghs

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...