"Spartacus is an initiative of several youngsters who long to create moments of political clarification by letting different viewpoints and visions confront one another. We want to create places, where a free debate about engaged subjects can take place. We wish to create a healthy atmosphere in the discussions which will allow all opinions on the subject to be heard, no matter how much those opinions differ. We’d like ideas to be exchanged freely, people to be open to and wanting to discuss with each other.
According to us, Spartacus must be an engaged and militant group and not an academic ‘chatting club’ or place of scholastic ‘education’. Because we need to struggle for a better world. The question however is: “How?”. The meaningfulness of a discussion group lies within this question, where theory and praxis come together. By discussion, we hope to develop our own consciousness and that of others about our deeds.
We wish to remain a group of individuals, who like to become more conscious about the visions and opinions of others, to acquire a better sense about what others defend. Thus we do not intend to become a political organisation or political ‘front’, with some sort of agenda or political programme. Everybody is welcome at the discussions, also members of political parties or organisations, as long as they contribute to the reflection process and do not come with the sole interest of recruiting new members or sabotate the debate. We ask the participants to think and argue for themselves and not to repeat uncritically the positions or programme of an organization. Everyone comes with his own sympathies, viewpoints and the will to clarify cases collectively.
We hope Spartacus will become a kind of reference for people looking for alternatives to the actual capitalist society with all her problems (ecological disasters, exploitation, poverty, war, …).
How do discussion-meetings function?
Discussions are preceded by an introduction. This can be a text, a video, a guest speaker… The introduction is there to make the discussion the most fruitful possible. She can be a guideline, so that the debate doesn’t develop in all kinds of direction and really pours into a clarification and deepening of a problem or question.
The discussion follows the introduction. The discussion is collective, this means, everyone takes part in the discussion, there is no ‘specialist’ or ‘professor’ discussing with a public. Nobody is obliged to speak, everyone may also just listen.
At the end of the meeting everybody can speak up about what he/she thinks of the discussion (content, form, atmosphere, what was good? what could be better? etc. Agreements about and appointments for the next discussion can be made.
The whole meeting is guided by a presidium or the moderators of the evening. They are not ‘bosses’ or authoritarian and absolute ‘leaders’, but coordinators that verify if the discussion develops well: does everyone get the chance to speak? do the participants listen to each other? are the interventions not to dispersed? do the participants respond to each other? do we respect time limitations? etc. The presidium bares a direct responsibility for a good development of the discussion, but naturally all participants have a great influence on this."