EKS on the Turkey and Iraq
May 10 2008 20:42
From the ICC website. Actually, I haven't read this yet myself.
ICC wrote:
Turkish Imperialism’s latest adventure in Northern IraqWe are publishing here an article from the Turkish group Enternasyonalist Komünist Sol (EKS), which analyses the different imperialist interests and rivalries underlying the Turkish army's recent incursions into northern Iraq. We consider it important for several reasons: first and foremost, by offering a clear analysis on an internationalist basis, it strikes a blow against both Turkish and Kurdish nationalism, in a region where the propaganda campaigns of all the competing bourgeois factions are doing their utmost to stoke nationalist hatreds so as to use the workers and poor masses as cannon fodder in their own sordid struggles for power and influence; second, it gives a voice to the feelings of indignation and revolt among the workers in Turkey who have been conscripted into this bloody conflict, and gives the lie to the bourgeoisie's claims, in Turkey and elsewhere, about universal popular support for the war.
http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/05/turkey-iraq
Devrim
May 11 2008 07:41
#2
Good questions. "Why has concern for national freedom been a main-stay of the international workers movement if national independence is bourgeois?" Well, we'd say that this shows that the "international workers' movement" has either outright betrayed internationalist principles and crossed over to the bourgeoise (Trots, Maoists, Stalinists etc) or at least is under the influence of bourgeois ideology. When Gramsci (and the Green Party for that matter) said "...the point of departure is ‘national’" he is talking from the perspective of the bourgeoisie. The starting point for the working class is the complete opposite, from the international level, because this is the very nature of the working class - a global class with common interests and no country to defend.
"How are we going to have a free planet if we don't have free countries?" Free from what? The bourgeosie have unleashed a system - capitalism - that is global, but on the basis of competing national capitals: politically, economically and militarily. Any country that 'frees' itself from capitalism will still be trapped - an island within a sea of capitalism - unless the revolution spreads and finally all countries are overthrown and cease to exist.
B.
May 11 2008 10:32
#3
zarathustra wrote:
I've never quite understood the left-communist position.
Actually, I think that you do. You just prefer to put forward some sort of 'national anarchist' position.
zarathustra wrote:
Are the bourgeoisie globalist or national? Why do the bourgeoisie oppose national liberation and independence if it is in their interest?
The Turkish bourgoise tend to oppose Kurdish independence. The Kurdish bourgeoisie tends to support it Why has concern for national freedom been a main-stay of the international workers movement if national independence is bourgeois? The bourgeoisie in general does not oppose national liberation. They support or oppose different movements according to their interests.
zarathustra wrote:
Do you oppose the secession of the Kurdish people? Would you similarly oppose the secession of any other country locked into a multinational state? Do you, for instance, oppose the national independence movements in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and England?
We don't 'oppose the secession of the Kurdish people'. We don't support it either. We say that supporting the creation of a Kurdish state is not in the interests of the working class, and that workers should be dragged behind their own bourgeoisie. The same would apply to 'national independence movements' in the UK.
Devrim
May 11 2008 20:51
#4
I see you've learned a new word and have added it to your sectarian thesaurus! Send out the message to left-communists everywhere!
In all seriousness, the fact that these "national anarchist" ideas pop up at all is because an issue is not being addressed. Forget anarchists -- the fact that the only people who don't blush when they say what ntionality they are are the right-wing kind of pushes people over to them. "What, these commies don't give a shit about my country? Fuck them!" That's the attitude you'll get. Makes sense to me.
I believe that in the time of the strength of the workers movement, these ridiculous bourgeois cosmopolitan ideas (falsely identifying themselves as "internationalist") were totally foreign and had only gotten roots amongst a handful of intellectualists. From Ricardo Flores Mogon to Nestor Makhno to James Connolly to Rudolph Rocker to Buenaventura Durruti to Octavio Alberola -- working-class libertarian socialists have stood for a truly international movement. International meaning between nations. It was understood that spiritual poverty is fundamentally as important -- more important -- than material poverty.
May 12 2008 11:17
#5
zarathustra wrote:
I see you've learned a new word and have added it to your sectarian thesaurus! Send out the message to left-communists everywhere!
Actually, it isn't a new term. In fact anarchists have used it on other threads on here today. As you well know, you hold a position, which is opposed by the majority of people on this board.
If you want to discuss the issue in this thread, discuss it. It is Turkey, and Iraq by the way. If you want to discuss the general issue start a new thread.
Devrim
May 12 2008 18:49
#6
Yes, since I brought up the "anarcho-fascists" it would be amusing to call me one. I've been following their activity and researching the bastards.
I've never quite understood the left-communist position. Are the bourgeoisie globalist or national? Why do the bourgeoisie oppose national liberation and independence if it is in their interest? Why has concern for national freedom been a main-stay of the international workers movement if national independence is bourgeois?
Do you oppose the secession of the Kurdish people? Would you similarly oppose the secession of any other country locked into a multinational state? Do you, for instance, oppose the national independence movements in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and England?
I personally agree with Antonio Gramsci when he said that "To be sure, the line of development is toward internationalism, but the point of departure is ‘national’ — and it is from this point of departure that one must begin." How are we going to have a free planet if we don't have free countries? As the Green Party likes to say, think global act local.