Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Abortion, euthanasia: so give us a referendum!


Pro-life and pro-choice supporters march through Warsaw today. (photo: Gazeta Wyborcza)

Two separate marches merged into a demonstration of 4,000 people in front of parliament, where lawmakers were debating amending the constitution to tighten Poland's anti-abortion law, already among the most restrictive in the EU.

See here and here for details.

The pro-lifers want to stop even women who were raped having an abortion, and want to enshrine into the constitution the ‘right to life from conception to natural death’ into the Polish constitution.

Usually, a change in the constitution requires a referendum to decide. That’s why there was one before joining the European Union.

So why do you think that the League of Polish Families, Radio Maryja – and the ruling Law and Justice – are trying to avoid having one?

Because they think they would lose.

I called for a referendum on this issue a long time ago. We need to debate this issue in this country.

The only folk who should be afraid of democracy are those who don’t feel very comfortable living in one.

See video of pro-life march at tvn24.pl

72 comments:

geez said...

A referendum is fine with me. I hope we get the opportunity to vote on one in the US as well.

opamp said...

Conspiracy theory: the whole abortion circus has been caused to divert attention from uncovering communist agents within the Church.

In other news, there will be no referendum on the missile defense either.

Because if we held referenda, we could end up like Switzerland. You know what kind of disaster that would be? Horror! Save our people form themseleves!

Mr K said...

“… right to life from cradle to natural death”

What’s wrong with that?

I think you meant to say – from conception to natural death. :)

beatroot said...

Mr K
You are right. Cradle was wrong.

Opamp: I am not sugesting a referendum on anything and everything.

But if a change in constitution is called for then there should be a majority in parliament AND a majority in the country.

I think that is reasonable.

europejczyk said...

Can somebody tell me what, in the age of high-tech medicine, does "a natural death" mean?

Michael Farris said...

europejczyk, don't expect an answer any time soon, I've wondered the same thing myself.

opamp said...

BR: I was being sarcastic. Of course I wouldn't mind having Switzerland here.

beatroot said...

Opamp: But what about Graham Green?

In one of the most memorable scenes in film history, Harry Lime, played by Orson Welles, compares the cultural achievements of Italy and Switzerland.

He says that under the Borgias, Italy had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, 500 years of democracy and peace, and all they produced was the cuckoo clock.

Nuff said....

Harry said...

Forget about natural death, I'd like to know when natural life begins! Sorry but if something can not exist without sucking the blood of another creature, it is not alive.

eulogist said...

Beatroot, agree on the referendum (I am one of those who consider Switzerland to be the only proper democracy in the world). But not because I believe that what the majority thinks is relevant for questions of morality. Only because I think that if you want laws, you have to be able to defend them publically - and well enough to convince an appropriate majority of the people. And a referendum is a better way to test whether you succeeded than parliamentary election.
Law and morality are two completely different beasts.

eulogist said...

By the way, to be fair on Switzerland, they adopted referenda only in 1848.

geez said...

Sorry but if something can not exist without sucking the blood of another creature, it is not alive.

Harry, are you a vampire? If so, you might want to move to Canada. They are very big on providing what they call "reasonable accomodations" there.

Anonymous said...

I suggest a referendum on the death penalty!

Warsaw guy

Damo said...

Polska Grupa Badawcza found in a recent opinion poll that a majority of Poles support the proposed amendment to the Polish Constitution which would guarantee the natural cycle, i.e. 'from conception to the grave'.

52.4% support the law that would ban abortion and euthanasia in all cases, 33.3% are opposed to it and 14.3% are sitting on the fence.

Associated Press are stating that there is little chance the amendment to section 38 will succeed because of PO/Leftist opposition.

geez said...

Maybe lefties should think twice before supporting referenda? Not only in Poland, too.

geez said...

Can somebody tell me what, in the age of high-tech medicine, does "a natural death" mean?

Depends on what you want to consider "artificial life support," I'd say.

I guess some will even oppose blood transfusions... dependent on someone else's blood y'know!

geez said...

And libbies might think twice on referenda, too, heh?

beatroot said...

Don;t think so. I ain't scared of the people. That's your bag...

geez said...

Look at the first comment way above, BR.

varus said...

But referendumd depend upon what questions are asked, and these can be
set in different ways. Take the Australian referendum for a republic.
Polls suggested most Australians wanted a republic. Yet, the referendum failed to achieve this. Why? - The wrong question was asked!

beatroot said...

Geeeeezer
I was actually referring to comments you made in the post below…

But I think you are encouraging and emboldening the racists/fascists by giving them a wider forum to solidify their own -- and to foment additional -- hatred.

And

too many people, while not machines, are much too easily manipulated by demagogic appeals to hate and violence. With mass media, especially the internet, this appeal is broadened and intensified many times over.

Ooooo internet…free speech…blaaaaah!

beatroot said...

varus. Australian ref showed that the republican opposition was split as to what should replace our dear dear Queenie. And that is typical today. You would expect with monarchy in decline in Oz and Uk then republicanism would be on the rise. But no. UK has lost faith in old institutions but has nothing to replace them.

Korakious said...

A referendum you say? Why? I don't think that the right to abortion and euthanasia should be something debatable.

Holding a referendum on such issues implies that what a majority thinks about them is relevant.

If a majority of people were against abortion, would that mean that it is ok to ban it?

By the way, I like this blog. I'll be visiting frequently.

beatroot said...

Nice to have you here, Korakious. We are a bunch of all sorts of types here. And if you join in with the comments, as you have, then quite a few will read you. We get about 5 to 5,500 hits a week these days (and rising …still).

I take your point about referenda and abortion, in that you obviously think this is a private matter. Me too. But we need to debate these issues if Poland is ever going to go forward. WE also need to enshrine in law that the state has no business in this issue. And of they want to change the constitution then they better have the people’s support and consultation.

geez said...

If a majority of people were against abortion, would that mean that it is ok to ban it?

OK, just let women vote on it.

Korakious said...

Still, would the fact that say, 51% of women want abortion to be banned make it anyway acceptable to ban abortion for all women?

nemeczek said...

karokius said:
Still, would the fact that say, 51% of women want abortion to be banned make it anyway acceptable to ban abortion for all women

Moral issues are not (or at least should not be) subject to a popular vote. And the law should use morality as it is guiding principle. The question is not whether enough people WANT the freedom of abortion for themselves, but rather whether it would be prudent of the state to GRANT such freedom to its citizens. In this context the word 'freedom' is used w/o its typical noble connotation. If asked, the majority of people would like two months' vacation in the Bahamas. Should the state be obliged to make their wishes come true? Majority of kids would like to eat 5 bars of chocolate a day; the parents feed them spinach instead. They do so because it is better in the long run. Same with restrictive abortion laws.

geez said...

Still, would the fact that say, 51% of women want abortion to be banned make it anyway acceptable to ban abortion for all women?

Only if you believe in democracy.

geez said...

And the law should use morality as it is guiding principle.

Laws are established by human beings based on their sense of morality. The question is whose sense of morality is thereby established? The morality of the majority or a minority?

Funny how some Catholics seem to reason just like Communists when it comes to who's to decide what is best for the masses.

beatroot said...

The point about similarities of some catholics and communists is one I have noticed before, albeit in completely different way.

I have noted before that this government seems to think it OK to go into areas of private life that are completely out of bounds for it to go. (split my infinitive!). Lustration for journalists in the private sector, for instance. Rights over abortion is another one where the state has no business going either.

And the state does not GRANT freedoms, people WIN them, by political struggle. All the state can to is TAKE freedoms away that it didn’t have in the first place. Like what communists did, like what some catholics do.

varus said...

Beatroot,

i was just meaning that a referendum can be affected by the choice of question. In the Australian referendum the question was: "Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament?"

This is in affect two question and this is why it failed, not because people were against a republic, but rather they were agaist the parliment choosing their president.

In the case of a referendum on abortion; who gets to choose the question?

eulogist said...

Varus: This is in affect two question and this is why it failed, not because people were against a republic, but rather they were agaist the parliment choosing their president.

This is why proper democracies (i.e. Switzerland) do not let governments formulate decide such things, because manipulation is just too easy. However, I don't think the fact that two questions were asked at once is the main problem here (actually, that is good: the more specific the question the better). What is bad is that government (or the majority in parliament) decides whether to ask a question at all. Apparently no one outside government can decide to ask the people again with a slightly different proposal.

In Switzerland, whether a referendum is held is decided either by the electorate (by collecting signatures), or by the constitution (e.g. a referendum is required on changes of the constitution). The question itself is always very simple and straightforward: Do you approve of the proposed law?

In order to get an idea, this electronic voting demo from Geneva may give an idea. Incidentally, the question asked is about abortion too. Note the button you can click to see the positions of the political parties.

In the case of a referendum on abortion; who gets to choose the question?

In the absence of a properly constitutionalised system of direct democracy, perhaps a political group in parliament could put forward a bill changing Poland's abortion law. That bill could then be put to the people with a simple 'do you approve yes/no' question.

varus said...

euologist

I agree that a specific question is better than a general one. Also, your right, the point is about who can propose a referendum. Also its about media focus. In the UK, we primarily only got told that Australia rejected becoming a Republic, where as this was not the whole story.

In Poland's case, the constitution specifies a 2/3 majority in parliment. If we go with your idea, we would first have to have a 2/3 parlimentary majority infavour of changeing the constitution regarding changes to the constitution. Only then will future constitutional changes go to the people. - In the present climate, do you see PiS relinquishing the governemnt's power over constitutional changes? This would be then an irraversible move, as to change it back would require a referendum to which people would vote no.

beatroot said...

Varus
This is in affect two question and this is why it failed, not because people were against a republic, but rather they were against the parliament choosing their president.

Honestly, I think you are confusing a technical fault in the referendum to a much more serious political fault within the anti-monarchist ‘movement’ in Oz. It failed because there were two different camps opposing the monarchy back then. They could not agree on what to replace it with.

And what we are forgetting Eulogist, is that referenda are taken often in countries that are very conservative. The Swiss have many such votes

eulogist said...

Beatroot: And what we are forgetting Eulogist, is that referenda are taken often in countries that are very conservative. The Swiss have many such votes

Sorry, what do you mean? That Switzerland is conservative because of the referenda? If so, not sure about that.

Is Switzerland conservative (and in what sense)? Is California (another frequent user)? Isn't Poland (a non-user)? Is Switzerland more conservative than neighbours with similar cultures, like Austria?

Korakious said...

Only if you believe in democracy.

Democracy does not consists in deciding for other people about issues that do not affect you. If 99% women do not have to have abortions, that shouldn't stop 1% from having them. Which is why this no issue for referenda.

Also, I echo Varus points on referenda. Referenda are prepared by governments and are almost always manipulated to serve their interests while also giving them the mantle of popular approval. I have made some posts on the matter of a referendum on Scottish independence in my blog.

Finally, a request. As a communist, I would appreciate it if people referred to the former Polish government as Communists, with a capital c. Thanks:)

beatroot said...

Korakious. You a communist? (sorry Communist). very good to have you along...it's gonna be fun...

And Eulogist.

Any country that only gave the vote to women in 1971 could, I suggest, be considered slightly er...wel...conservative....maybe?

And as I said, the vast majority of recults from referenda in Switzerland are a resounding NO to change.

These guys are CONSERVATIVES...

eulogist said...

Ooooooo, don't get me started on this one! :-P

First of all, you have to consider the democratic system as a whole, not just the referenda, because there are checks and balances everywhere. The vast majority of laws in Switzerland (over 95%) are passed just like anywhere else, by parliament - as it should be. What is different is that the electorate, by collecting a sufficient number of signatures, can force a referendum on a law that has been passed by parliament. That's the about 5% controversial ones. Of these, about half still gets a 'yes' vote. I.e. the system approves some 97% of the laws. Not that bad, is it?

Secondly: The Swiss system has legalised abortion, euthanasia, and stem cell research. How is that compared to Poland?

Third: Sure, they continue voting 'no' against EU entry (the German speaking Swiss, that is, not the French speakers). So would I probably in their case, as it is obvious that this would seriously undermine their superior form of democracy. Let the EU become more democratic first, then we talk.

Fourth: Women's voting rights - ah yes, that one. To be entirely honest, I am not too upset it - in the case of Switzerland. Let me put it this way: How often have *you* been able to vote on a proposed law in your country? My guess is: unless you have been an MP, never. The only way for you to influence specific proposals is to contact your MP and hope s/he will listen to you. Swiss men and women, however, can vote on proposals whenever they feel like it. They have universal suffrage. You don't. So which is the most advanced democracy today, Switzerland or [other country]? And which is the most conservative, Switzerland or [other country]?

beatroot said...

Euologist. In my part of the world where I grew up(UK – obviously not Poland) we have something called REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. That means we elect people to make the laws and then let them get on with it. If we don’t like what they have done we kick the bastards out.

Under that system we have achieved the same amount of progression as Switzerland...if not more…and you seem to dismiss the women's vote thing, but 50% of the population not voting until 1971 is STONE AGE.

But ultimately, it is not a referendum system, or representative system that counts. It’s not about systems.

Women won the right to vote through political struggle in the UK. All the rights we have, we won. And that is the difference. Swiss are just too passive to struggle for anything.

Cuckoo clocks...

geez said...

Rights over abortion is another one where the state has no business going either.

I see. So you should get the say about what rights people should have. So you no longer support a referendum?

And the state does not GRANT freedoms, people WIN them, by political struggle. All the state can to is TAKE freedoms away that it didn’t have in the first place. Like what communists did, like what some catholics do.

If a democratic state does not constitutionally grant and define freedoms and rights, they don't exist.

geez said...

comrade (notice the small c) K wrote Democracy does not consists in deciding for other people about issues that do not affect you.

Sounds a lot like George Wallace complaint about northerners trying to impose integration on the south.

And it follows that not being a minority, I should not vote for a politician based on his record vis-a-vis civil rights for minorities.

Sorry but I'm not surprised a communist has a convoluted idea of democracy. It's always the proletarian vanguard that should make the decision for other people.

beatroot said...

Ypu say 'grant' I say 'win'...you say potato I say tomato...

Korakious said...


Korakious. You a communist? (sorry Communist). very good to have you along...it's gonna be fun...


FAQ


And it follows that not being a minority, I should not vote for a politician based on his record vis-a-vis civil rights for minorities


No one mentioned minorities, but since you mentioned them consider the following example. Scotland has a sizeable Asian minority. Should there be a referendum about whether Asians should have equal rights with Whites in Scotland? If there was a referendum and the answer returned was "no", would it be ok to treat Asians as second class citizens and organize lynchings?

It's always the proletarian vanguard that should make the decision for other people.

I'm of the opinion that people should make their own decisions about themselves. This implies that no majority should be able to tell a woman whether she can have an abortion or not.

geez said...

Is there any chance Scots would actually vote to treat Asians as second class citizens and to approve organized lynchings, let alone sign a petition for such a referendum? Or do they just have to wave their willies a certain way to denote yay or nay?

geez said...

Year 2025.

A woman finds out that she has the gene that is the predominant factor in determining that her and her male partner's offspring will be gay. She decides to abort on that basis. The state should have no say?

Korakious said...

Is there any chance Scots would actually vote to treat Asians as second class citizens and to approve organized lynchings, let alone sign a petition for such a referendum? Or do they just have to wave their willies a certain way to denote yay or nay?

No, but there is a chance that a population will vote against abortion.


A woman finds out that she has the gene that is the predominant factor in determining that her and her male partner's offspring will be gay. She decides to abort on that basis. The state should have no say?


In the hypothetical situation that homosexuality is "caused" by a gene (is heterosexuality caused be a gene too?) and someone decided to abort on the basis that their offspring would be gay, then the state should have nothing to do with said decision, apart from responding with a mass educational campaign against homophobia.

beatroot said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beatroot said...

Geeeeesh
The game you are trying to play is ‘so, if they found a gay gene and wanted an abortion….is the same one as ‘let’s have a referendum on the death penalty…

Both anti-death penalty, and pro- or anti choice are against referenda because they think they might lose.

And that shows the contempt for the masses and how insecure they are of their own arguments.

Only cowards and inadequate avoid a referendum.

Korakious said...

I am against referenda on such matters on principle. I don't think such issues are up for debate.

Damo said...

Such issues should always be up for debate as if they are not debated then irrationality and ignorance remains about the complicated ethics of this issue.

By your vanguardist rational even if 99% of the population are against abortion and the government is for legalising it then, no questions asked and no answers welcome, abortion becomes law.

On a side note, Health Minister Religia announced yesterday that he was against amending the constitution as it currently stands in Poland. This is consistent with his statement that the Polish gvt. should not appeal the Tysiac case. But without such a powerful figure behind the amendment it's surely now very doubtful that this amendment will pass?

Korakious said...


By your vanguardist rational even if 99% of the population are against abortion and the government is for legalising it then, no questions asked and no answers welcome, abortion becomes law.


Your jurisprudential acumen is striking. You would put Weber to shame. Only prohibition of abortion can become law. Abortion can only be sanctioned by law.

By your majoritarian rationale, if 99% wanted to kick x minority out of the country, then the government should do that.

Similarly, in Greece, since only 10% of the population supports legislation for civil union/marriage for homosexuals, the government should go along with the homophobic majority.

Populism ftw!

beatroot said...

Korakious
I find your opinion that 'such a matter is not upn for debate' extraordinary. In politics EVERYTHING is up for debate. That's how progress happens.

Korakious said...

Well, I don't feel at all inclined to debate a return to feudalism. Debate yields progress only when it is between two sides of progressive nature. The anti abortion crowd is driven by ideologies that are rooted in the middle ages, hence, inherently reactionary.

Damo said...

Abortion becomes law, that is
lawful, legal, sanctioned through a piece of enacted legislation. I concede that I should have phrased it better.

Yawn, your joke is shite and typical of people who like to play the man and not the ball. Don't expect a return serve.

'no questions asked and no answers welcome' was inserted as a clause to tackle your position that it's not up for debate. That was my main point, not that the gvt. should blindly adhere to the will of the majority. Sure it can serve us well at times (against Iraq war) if employed by the gvts. (Spanish, British, Irish, Polish) in question but it leaves a dangerous precedent (like the good examples you provided).

I made no assertion of being a fan of populism and do not regard my self as a populist. On the contrary, I am at one with you regards the two examples you provide.

If I was a populist I would be calling for a referendum around the issue of abortion because stats./polls are that it may very well be rejected wholesale, that is even under the currently permitted provisions here in Poland.

Your assertion that you do not wish to enter into debate with those who are not of a progressive nature interests me.
Do you not try to engage people on the st. about your political beliefs when you have stalls regardless of what they believe or how they look (for example, if the are wearing a mohair in Poland you can be damned sure you've found your nemesis)?

Do you leave no room for dialogue for convincing doctors who are ethically against abortion or for people who are not adherents to a religious faith yet opposed to legalising abortion on demand (for example)?

Lenin in Zurich said...

Funny, I came to the conclusion about 30 years ago that postindustrial communists were reactionary, clinging to a carbuncled ideology shaped in an era that has long ago since ended.

beatroot said...

I agree with that stament Lenin.

Except for the maths. Stalinism got the boot 17 yrs ago, not 30...

Michael Farris said...

beat, surely you're not trying to say that Poland (after the 50's) had anything to do with real Stalinism?

Using communism = stalinism is simplistic and inaccurate. Stalinism is a sub-variety of communist rule and not synonymous with communism per se.

Albania? yes. Romania? Yep until they shot the GreatLeader.
North Korea is still stalinist, perhaps the last example. (Since the Chinese government moved away from Stalinist principles in the late 80's)

You could easily make the argument that Poland had no Stalinist government ever.

beatroot said...

Mike
The 'stalinist'jibe was directed at korakious, who claims to be a 'communist'. Now if he is a 'communist' then he would say that Poland was not a true communist country 1945-89 but either a 'state capitalist' or 'degenerated workers state' or ...a stalinist' one, depending on what faction or whatever korakious comes from on the 'communist' left. So I am just testing to see where the guy is coming from.

I am sure we will find out...

lenin in zurich (w stanie spoczynku) said...

My math is fine. Kommunizm wuz ded in Poland in 1976. Ded iz ded but fingernails forget.

geez said...

You could easily make the argument that Poland had no Stalinist government ever.

You think the guys and women in Torunska's Oni weren't pathetic puppets of Stalin?

Michael Farris said...

pathetic puppets of Stalin =/= Stalinism, which is a specific kind of totalitarian government based on:

- a cult of personality around a charismatic strongman national leader
- propagandization of the entire media, including the fine arts (as in socialist realism)
- heavy use of secret police to stifle dissent (including collective punishment)

In Europe the most Stalinist governments (After Joe Steel himself) were Romania under Ceaucescu and Albania under Hoxha) there were stalinist elements here and there at various times in Poland but it never got the whole tamale at the same time.

Branch said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
geez said...

Maybe given that the Polish communist leaders in the Bierut era were so pathetically subserviant to Stalin, Stalin was the strongman leader? I was referring to the era in the book Oni.

geez said...

Michael, I know you were originally refering to the period of Gomulka and beyond.

But I was referring to the Bierut era as exemplified in the book Oni. Stalin was their strongman nationalist leader to whom they were pathetically and totally subservient.

In any case, there were also many carry-over Stalinistic features in the regime of Gomulka, et. al., especially in terms of your #2 & 3 qualifications. Let us not forget that communism, no matter how it was sliced, diced and developed, came to Poland as a gift from Stalin. Home grown Polish communists would have never been able to sing "I did it my way" no matter what. So the imprint of Stalinism lingered and does so to the present day just with the Palace of Culture in the center of Warsaw.

Korakious said...

Good times, my comment seems to have disappeared. Here we go again:

To damo:

Sorry for lashing out mate. I've not been particularly well lately. Apologies.

As regards debating. I don't refuse to enter into debate with reactionaries during my own political work, however, I don't think debate with raving catholics should inform policy on abortion, anymore than debate with reactionary Muslims should affect legislation against ectomy.



Funny, I came to the conclusion about 30 years ago that postindustrial communists were reactionary, clinging to a carbuncled ideology shaped in an era that has long ago since ended.


Funny, liberalism predates Marxism by more than a century.

At any rate, I can't see what this post industrial drivel has to do with the validity of Marxism. A supermarket worker (the biggest industry in Britain) sells his or her labour to an employer in the same manner that a miner does. Issues of consciousness may be affected but the fundamental relations of capital and labour are still in place. Someone should learn to distinguish between form and content.

Besides that, the whole post industrial hype is a load of rubbish. If you take a look outside the Global North (aye, there's a world there, and it's bigger than yours) you'll see that industry is alive and well. It couldn't really be any other way as industry produces the conditions of existence of civilization. In order for the service sector to be able to deal in thin air as it does, it must be able to stand somewhere first. You can't have banking without computers, and you can't have computer hardware without copper. Computer hardware can't be assembled without machines, which in turn can't exist without being first constructed, nor can they operate without fuel. It's common sense.

Now as regards Stalinism, it all depends on how you use the term. In a strictly scientific manner, Stalinism is characterised by the elements Michael Farris mentioned. To these I would add the militarization of labour and of course the theory of socialism in one country.

In my personal political work, I often use the term more loosely to refer to most of the satellite states. After all, the regimes were all products of Stalinism.

As for myself, I view the USSR during Stalin's time in power as a deformed workers state. After Stalin's death and the physical entrenchment of the bureaucracy, some elements of state capitalism can be observed in the Soviet system, although I personally believe that the concept of state capitalism is too simplistic and thus weak in itself.

That's all folks.

geez said...

I see from your blog, comrade K...

An anti-Trotskyite Trotskyite.

Very novel.

Then again, I seem to remember a few previous splits in the Trot movement over the years.

Actually, so many that I lost count and interest in the early 70s.

You do bring back fond memories.

And, I guess you got my number spot on, comrade K.

I've become a raving Catholic liberal.

Korakious said...


Actually, so many that I lost count and interest in the early 70s


The sectarian wankery of Trots is precisely the reason I do not describe myself as one. I am more comfortable with drawing from a variety of traditions, with heavy emphasis on Rosa Luxemburg (I made a post about her some time ago, if you care to skip back) than becoming entangled in the personality politics of Trots and their 626359862495832496824958 4th internationales.

geez said...

Actually, I will read your Rosa post, cK, if you give me some clue how to find it.

And in no time, I'm sure you'll attract a critical mass of Beatrootian (or is it Beatrootist?) Poles interested in reorganizing the SDKPiL. Have fun!

beatroot said...

Beatrootian

Korakious said...

geez

Part 1

Part 2

geez said...

Thank you cK.

Read 'em both.

Don't quite know what you're getting at, aside from your being slightly critical of Lenin and Trotsky.

How many people are members of the Scottish Socialist Party? Is the Polish guy you've recruited ready to revivify the SDKPiL in exile?

Anonymous said...

For most up-to-date news you have to visit web and on
web I found this web site as a finest site for most up-to-date updates.


Here is my web-site; read what he said