The collapse of the eastern bloc, imperialism and the 1992 Balkan War

201 posts / 0 new
Last post
Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Jan 3 2008 00:50

Except they're not Leninists. Which makes the contradiction different, if not always any less great.

yoshomon
Offline
Joined: 19-06-07
Jan 3 2008 01:14

I don't really see why the positions of the WSM or NEFAC are any less offensive than those of the ICC. It doesn't really matter to me either way, but I think drawing this line in the sand is pretty stupid. Why not be consistent? I also don't think the ICC are Leninists, even though I disagree with them 100% about 'the party' and their positions on the Bolsheviks.

Further, the ICC participates actively in these forums. While they often argue in circles, they still at least make some kind of effort to defend the articles and such they post, so I don't think it's fair to call their relationship to this site parasitic.

While anti-politics.net attracts crazy individuals, libcom.org attracts crazy organizations (plus crazy people). Your logic extended and put into practice would mean dissolving the entire website. Sure, why not? Then we could all focus on what matters: nationalizing the Irish oil industry.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Jan 3 2008 01:21

I was careful to say that the contradictions with @ groups were not necessarily any the less great - did you miss that? I also said '(semi)Leninist'. As for the ICC defence tactics - this thread shows the pitiful dishonest quality of that. My logic doesn't necessarily lead where you say it does - it might lead to a greater selectivity, which might be a good thing. And certain kinds of 'consistency' can be just weak liberalism in practice.

yoshomon
Offline
Joined: 19-06-07
Jan 3 2008 04:35

I would say that certain @ groups are just as close to Leninism as the ICC but in different ways. The ICC is close organizationally and in terms of analysis of the Bolsheviks, while the @ groups are close in terms of position of national liberation and unions. Makes for weird discussions.

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Jan 3 2008 11:57
Quote:
This conspiracy claim appears to be based more or less on one quote from the Daily Telegraph.

Not quite.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/48407.stm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9406E5DA1238F93AA25752C0A96E958260

As I already pointed out with reference to US support for Iraq in the 80s, by its very nature covert support cannot be consistent because otherwise it wouldn't be covert but obvious for everyone to see ...

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Jan 3 2008 13:09
Quote:
This conspiracy claim appears to be based more or less on one quote from the Daily Telegraph.
Demagorg wrote:
Not quite.

So one original source is then repeated by other media - that doesn't add up to additional evidence accumulation.

Demagorg wrote:
by its very nature covert support cannot be consistent

But what is termed 'inconsistent' may actually be genuine contradictory/opposing internal state tendencies/policies.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Jan 3 2008 16:38

No withdrawal of the basic positions and anyone who says that they wouldn't write something different a second time is a fool.
The "scandal" over the fixation on the question of whether or not Irish nationalism played a role in imperialist rivalries between the US and Britain around the 70s, 80s and 90s has shown several aspects: Revol spews out his abuse and scuttles off; guyde's shocked about the lack of concern for bourgeois legal procedures and Ret can smell an attack on the ICC a mile away.
Why this reaction, this outrage? Is it naivity? Ignorance is no excuse. Join in any old attack on the ICC - there's an element of that; a certain support for Irish nationalism as an expression of the working class - possibly. My opinion is that the main weakness is illusions in the democratic state. I note that the main thesis of the discussion - inter-imperialist rivaries in the "new world order" - is ignored. I note, contrary to what Catch says, that the Wildcat text on the "new world order" presents the most ludicrous conspiracy theory about the organisation of the bourgeoisie world-wide with not one whit of criticism from all the defenders of the "prove it"! "prove it"! argument. Catch says (to the effect that) this was just one part of the text - ditto Ireland in my text Catch. I stand by the whole of the general basisof my text (as I said ignore the bit on Ireland if you want to) and look forward to any alternative analysis being proposed.

COMING SOON!: "The machiavellianism of the bourgeoisie".

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Jan 3 2008 18:02
buffoon wrote:
Ret can smell an attack on the ICC a mile away.

All I smell is a recurrence of your inaccurate bullshit - and a recurrence of trying to discredit/misrepresent those who question it and who ask for clarification/proof; and a recurrence of denying anything wrong in repeatedly trying to present speculation as fact.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Jan 4 2008 13:31

Alibadani, thanks for your note; I have, at best, an average of 4 hours a week access to the internet but am aiming for longer soon. The position I put forward above is not a question of being "proved" but an analysis of living, observing and activity within a political framework. At any rate, "proof", written validations' are dismissed out of hand, for example being written in the "wrong" type of newspaper and other such spurious excuses. The issue here is the defence of anti-working class positions, ie, the defence of nationalism or illusions in democracy.
It's a pity that this important discussion has produced in part abuse, the aspects of a court of bourgeois law and the general tone of a university debating society. Imperialist war and the organisation of the bourgeoisie are essential questions for the working class.
I understand, from linked threads, that there is a marked defence of nationalism, even of nationalism in the cause of anti-imperialism! That is a dangerous, murderous and suicidal position for the working class. What I was trying to show about the development of imperialism was its decay into each for themselves and the fractionation of society more and more into nationalisms, races, tribal divisions, in short the decomposition of capitalism into more competitive units with, to some degree or other, the greater imperialist powers involved.

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Jan 4 2008 15:26
Quote:
So one original source is then repeated by other media - that doesn't add up to additional evidence accumulation.

The fact that it was widely repeated on both sides of the Atlantic by various fractions of the bourgeoisie and came from a senior bourgeois source indicates that they took it seriously enough.

Quote:
But what is termed 'inconsistent' may actually be genuine contradictory/opposing internal state tendencies/policies.

This is perfectly true but is shifting the ground of the debate. The unity of the bourgeoisie is always a temporary, contingent phenonmena and this goes for the state too. The fact that other arms of the state appear to stand against particular operations can spring from any number of reasons:

1) The need for plausible denial.
2) They don't follow the "party line" because the originating agency or fraction has kept this secret, due to the importance of keeping the operation secret.
3) Genuine differences of orientation with one group seeking to stymie or expose the activities of the other.

Take for example the Contra affair. It was a Republican controlled Senate that limited the ability of the CIA to carry out their funding of the Contra rebels which necessitated the secret deals with Iran. Was this evidence of a genuine split between the executive and legislature? Or was the original Boland Amendment an attempt to cover up the embarrassment of the CIA caught with its pants down to prove "we're still a democracy, honest!"? We can't know - although we can speculate - but what is without doubt that a significant fraction within the state were backing these measures.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Jan 4 2008 18:02
Quote:
Quote:
So one original source is then repeated by other media - that doesn't add up to additional evidence accumulation.

The fact that it was widely repeated on both sides of the Atlantic by various fractions of the bourgeoisie and came from a senior bourgeois source indicates that they took it seriously enough.

Took it seriously as what, though? Truth, propaganda or indifference to the distinction? Regardless, you presented its repetition as additional evidence - which, as I pointed out, is not the case.

Quote:
We can't know - although we can speculate - but what is without doubt that a significant fraction within the state were backing these measures.

In the case of the Contras. More generally, this is a far more subtle distinction from the absolutism previously bandied about by the conspiracists here - and a distinction only belatedly and reluctantly acknowledged after telling criticism of the original claims presented wrongly as fact.

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Jan 4 2008 19:03

Ret

Baboon and his supporters have already acknowledged ages ago that this should have been rephrased given the context of the article. Why keep going on about this? The fact is that this claim about the IRA was never even a central point of the original article but included as part of a general framework of the international situation of the time in a somewhat careless form of "shorthand". The very fact that it was shorthand, means there was little elaboration about it.

What do you think was behind the actions of the Clinton administration towards the IRA in the 90s?

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Jan 4 2008 23:48
Quote:
Why keep going on about this?

Er, if you want an answer I'd have to 'keep going on about this'. But I think I've made my position clear - all the questions you ask have been answered in previous posts - while the misrepresentations/words put in others' mouths by ernie and co have not been responded to when pointed out, never mind retracted/apologised for. Which speaks volumes.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Jan 5 2008 23:22

Ret you got there beforre me. I have only just read this thread and was going to apologise to guy for saying he intervened on the O'ccasey, but got delaid. You will probably think I am a lieing devious bastard but then there you go, you cannot win them all.

Guy: a very large apology for misrepresenting you, very sloppy on my part.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Jan 5 2008 23:24

Guy

Unless I have missed something, which going by my record is not impossible, I am still not the clearer about you position on national liberation. Have I missed something?

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Jan 6 2008 17:00
ernie wrote:
You will probably think I am a lieing devious bastard

Well I don't know why - as illustrated earlier - you made inaccurate claims about my statements on the O'Casey thread.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Jan 6 2008 17:07
Quote:
My position on national liberation has nothing to do with the point I raised, which is the only one I care to discuss.

Why don't you care to discuss about your position on national liberation also?

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Jan 6 2008 17:46
Quote:
Thats for another thread.

Actually, the IRA question, and the proxy army question should have been for another thread as well. This thread was supposed to be about "The collapse of the eastern bloc, imperialism and the 1992 Balkan War".

Quote:
I think you lot are trying to get off easy by switching the parameters of the discussion.

I think you lot are trying to pick sentences in a text about something else in order to attack people whose politics you don't like.

Quote:
Still haven't answered on whether you literally believe the IRA is a proxy army for the US.

I think that question was answered long ago by the ICC. They said that it was too strong a statement and that it should have been stated as an hypothesis, not a fact.

Quote:
Getting bored of the evasion tactics.

Getting bored of the hostility, insincerity and cynicism.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Jan 7 2008 15:31

Yes, the IRA and associated Irish nationalist organisations were used by the United States administration as weapons in its imperialist manoeuvres against Britain. Even if I wanted to to I couldn't get the US administration to write you all notes of confirmation - they wouldn't do it. I saw and understood within a political framework what was happening at the time. Now as earth-shattering and shocking as this simple, analysis may be to some, it is only a minor part of the text.
What about the New World Order?

Bobby
Offline
Joined: 22-09-05
Jan 7 2008 18:16

There is no evidence to suggest that blanketly that the US supported the IRA. Sure they had some support from a section of Irish-American dispora, and maybe a knod and wink from some Congressmen, some sympathy from individuals within the security services but thats as far as it went. However, any limited report into collsion in the north has always highlighted institutionalised collusion, cover up all the rest of it not just a few bad apples. Even recently when all the charges were dropped against Sean Hoey who was wrongly accused and served 4 years on remand for the Omagh bomb, the judges reported concluded that there was a cover-up including tinkering with forensic evidence which went to the highest level-senior police officers.

Beltov
Offline
Joined: 10-05-05
Jan 7 2008 20:51
Bobby wrote:
Sure they had some support from a section of Irish-American dispora, and maybe a knod and wink from some Congressmen, some sympathy from individuals within the security services but thats as far as it went.

*ahem*

Bobby
Offline
Joined: 22-09-05
Jan 7 2008 21:13

big deal, i was referring to the armed struggle, abviously with strings attached and 'political stability' and 'normalisation' always in the interest of successive US administrations and bringing Sinn Fein inside the tent.

Bobby
Offline
Joined: 22-09-05
Jan 7 2008 21:33

i really worried about you revol, obviously the RIRA were responsible for the bombing, well im concerned with the plight with any prisoner, political or otherwise who has been fitted up by the state. Even most of the families from the early stages said that Sean was innocent and fitted up. Jesus if we had yr way the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6 would still be rotton inside.

Beltov
Offline
Joined: 10-05-05
Jan 7 2008 22:01
revol68 wrote:
That was during the peace process...

Well this is precisely our point. It's vital to have a historical understanding of imperialist rivalries. Yes, someone earlier mentioned that the FBI made things difficult for the IRA in the mid 1980s, but that was at the time when there was a closer relationship between Britain and the US, within the context of the cold war bloc system. On the other hand the US never shut down Noraid, which was an organisation based in the US raising millions of dollars to fund terrorism in a foreign country.

The 'peace process' was in the era after the collapse of the bloc system, when the Brits were seeking to put some distance between them and the US, which is what the original purpose of this thread was. Your picture of Paisely and Adams is again in a different historical situation, one where Blair had moved British imperialism closer to the US. Our understanding was that while Blair and Paisely didn't entirely see eye-to-eye, the British used loyalism to sabotage the 'peace process' and drag their feet where possible.

B.

Bobby
Offline
Joined: 22-09-05
Jan 7 2008 22:02

yes, even after he was released revol nothing suprises me anymore with you...

Bobby
Offline
Joined: 22-09-05
Jan 7 2008 22:06

beltov, you should just keep to yr 'internationalist' positions whatever that means.

Bobby
Offline
Joined: 22-09-05
Jan 7 2008 22:08

why the fuck do ye always have to bring things to a 'low' with comments like that.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Jan 8 2008 14:20

Even within all this hostility there is above some elements of comprehension that relations between the USA and the UK over Ireland might, at least, be influenced by inter-imperialist rivalries. The latter being the point of the text on the New World Order.
Of course the Loyalist factions, in the particular circumstances of the end of the Cold War, acted for the interests of the British state. I can't see how anybody who can read can possibly doubt that.
Even Revol, for all his outright hostility, earlier raises the possibility of Irish nationalism within the framework of imperialist tensions, seeing the IRA as a more likely agency for British interests (he says words to this effect above).
There's no doubt the British secret services infiltrated the IRA at the highest levels - see Alf's post above on the famous "Steaknife" episode. But the weight of all the IRA's activities and connections with the USA, along with the US inspired, led and imposed "peace process" (undertaken by a US senator under direct orders from the White House), strongly suggest Irish nationalism as a pawn within US imperialist manoeuvres. What also confirms this analysis is that the whole tendency of the twentieth century is for the US (in times of "peace" and war) to undermine its British rival. This tendency was even more strengthened after the collapse of the eastern bloc and the US imposed "new world order".

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jan 9 2008 09:47

"The fact is the ICC's and it's sad desperate groupies that hang on it's tails (is there anything less dignified than sychophantically aping a political organisation that won't let you in?)"

And your evidence for this statement (especially the last phrase) is? Since people are so concerned about the ICC backing up its arguments with formal evidence, perhaps Revol would care to elucidate on his source of knowledge about Baboon's relationship with the ICC?

Back to the more general point: loyalism was from the beginning a 'proxy' of the British state, even if some of the actions of the loyalist gangs may have escaped the hands that feed them (and even when carried out by implanted British agents....). Ireland has always been regarded by the British ruling class as part of its strategic defences, so in that sense during the cold war loyalism was part of the western bloc's arsenal. The Russians, however, knew they had little chance of gaining a strong influence in ireland and did not make very concerted efforts to use Republicanism as a counter-weight, although there were certainly links with the IRA via agents such as Lybia, the Czech weapons suppliers, etc.

Again the question: why is Ireland somehow removed from the global arena of inter-imperialist rivalries? This point has been conistently evaded in most of the posts criticising the ICC's alleged conspiracy theories.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jan 9 2008 23:29

I think I remember baboon saying he applied to be a member of the ICC but was rejected.

You remembered wrong