Irish unification (26+6=1) - what's wrong with it?

Nobody really "dominates" the world today. The world is actually carved into imperialist blocs, each with their own desires for domination. Irish nationalism cannot dominate the world, neither can it change anything since a new Irish nation state just would get integrated into the world market and would become part of one or the other imperialist camp as in Angola, where the MPLA bourgeois faction fought against the UNITA and the FNLA bourgeois factions in the Angolan Civil War. The MPLA were supported by the "socialist" U.S.S.R., the FNLA and UNITA, by "socialist" China, the U.S.A and others. All that came out of it was another bourgeois state, integrated into the world market. In the time of the U.S.S.R., Irish nationalists could perhaps have conceivably looked to the Russians for help and have gotten a national liberation (which may or may not have actually happened in reality). However, now that the U.S.S.R. no longer exists, a united Irish state would have to look for some other bloc, perhaps a future one formed by Russia or Venezuela(?), to come into existence, integrate into and survive. Either way, the whole exercise would be meaningless since the workers of all the countries in this hypothetical bloc would be already too infused with nationalism, subject to brutal international warfare and far too weakened because of their collaborating with the nationalist bourgeoisie to conceive of a socialist revolution. This was the pattern across all the anti-colonial, nationalist revolts of the past century supported by either the U.S.S.R. or China or India or some other power.

PartyBucket:

I no longer know what to say to you. You seem more like a Jehovah's Witness than a Marxist of any stripe. You "believe" that striving to get out from under the thumb of a foreign power is a "reactionary" goal and that is all there is to it. If the working class disagrees with you then fuck 'em. You know best.

That's a silly accusation for a Marxist. What happened to upholding class analysis despite the prevailing prejudices of the day?

You yourself posted a great argument against this very post of yours earlier in the thread about the Chinese Exclusion Act. Since the working-class disagreed with you A.R., you are saying they were right to want to keep the Chinese from entering the US and taking railroad and mining jobs (as people like Haywood did)? Because that is what a large portion of the working-class wanted at the time.

It's workerism pure and simple to say that because the workers think it now, under the influence of bourgeois ideologies, it must be right. Though as has been pointed out, things are significantly different in Northern Ireland than you seem to imagine.

EDIT:

I'd also like to add my 2 cents regarding this statement:

Is there a fundamental truth underlying this statement? Is it truly progressive or revolutionary for a nations working-class and oppressed population in general to support one capitalist state (whether it be their own national bourgeoisie and intelligentsia, a different foreign state, etc) over another (a currently occupying foreign state)? Would the Northern Irish working-class be better off being exploited by an Irish national bourgeoisie as their counterparts in the South?

The answer given by class struggle minded militants and those with personal links by nature of their residence/background in Ireland or the UKon this thread have resoundedly answered No to that last question. What makes you believe that the working-class is better off toiling and exploited under another bourgeoisie with a different language or culture than the one currently exploiting them?

PartyBucket, workingclass and anybody else still trying to have a reasonable discussion with Alexander Roxwell, you're wasting your time.

Lots of us have tried on previous threads, and we've got nowhere. He won't engage in a discussion, and his dismissals of others on these boards are growing more frequent and insulting.

I'm not even sure why he keeps at it; perhaps he really is just a sophisticated troll.

But I don't think he should be banned, just ignored, like a child 'playing up' for attention.

I don't mind if people discussing on this forum do not engage well with each other. This is a public forum and these discussions are visible to anyone reading this website.

1. I already told you Im not a 'Marxist'.
2. Since this is a Libertarian Communist board and I am a Libertarian Communist, arent you the one sticking your foot in my front door spouting shit?
3. 'Foreign' is an appropriate word...the foreign power opposed as a foreigner not for class reasons, which is just one reason why your precious Anti-Imperialism is a bag of shit.

Striving to get out from under the thumb of a foreign power is not a direct engagement in the "class struggle."

Supporting the struggle of an Empire to impose a foreign overlord on a crushed people is not a direct engagement in the "class struggle."

Therefore we do not care about the outcome of such a struggle.

If that does not sum up your [$@*&$+] opinion then please revise as appropriate.

Let me see. Would I support the right of slaveowners to keep and maintain their ownership of slaves unmolested.

No. I would have joined Karl Marx in supporting the utter smashing of the slaveocracy. I do believe that I have stated that in an earlier post.

So why do you support the right of the Palestinian bourgeoisie for example to keep and maintain the ownership of Palestinian wage slaves unmolested by the more powerful Israeli bourgeoisie?

That is your attitude, you've even directly said that above. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with the working class, what is wrong is deciding that you need to pick sides with two opposing nationalist tendencies. The problem is the relation of power, not the particular person or group that wields the power.
for example: John Bull is ten years old and so is Saint Patrick and his five friends. John is bigger than Patrick and his friends and takes half of their sweets. Patrick gets his brother Sam to beat up John. Sam takes half of the boys' sweets as a reward. Young Patrick and his friends find their sweets taste sweeter and do not mind the fact that nothing has really changed.

Substantial sections of the working class consider the irish government to be the foreign power. Not sure if it is a majority any more, but it was within living memory.
Striving to liberate people from being under anyone's thumb is a direct engagement in the class struggle, demanding that the nail polish on the thumb be changed from a union jack to a tricolore is not a direct engagement in the class struggle no matter how much socialist rhetoric you put in (in fact pretty little, as even that Conolly quote is against you).

But to return to your final point, you'e actually correct in summing up the position of an actual communist/anarchist.

The difference is we recognise that the struggle between British Imperialism and the admittedly smaller Irish Imperialism is one in which we have no real stake.

If my company outsources me, I move from a large call centre run by a multinational ( boo) to a smaller, national company (hooray). If my pay and conditions stay the same then it doesn't much matter, who cares which name is on the door of the building. But if those conditions change then I will be angry and hope to organise with my colleagues to fight back. If my company tries to make those changes I will try to fight back. If my company tries to outsource so it doesn't have to do them directly I still try to fight back. The important part is fighting back, not which particular boss it is against.

One more point, most of the Irish bourgeoisie recognises that Northern Ireland would be an albatross for the republic. It would increase the population by over 50%, unemployment is rife in northern Ireland and the south would need to find the money to start paying benefits etc. It would need to take control of the policing (the entrenched sectarian divides would presumably not vanish overnight). A good half of this new population would have been against joining ( one sixth of the elctorate) with this opposition ranging from practical (venefits etc) or mild to vehement loyalism. It would also mean that instead of using N.I. to fuck with the Brits they would find the Brits using N.I. to fuck with them. Much less fun and much less useful strategically.

LBird:

Totally agree; and having just begun to read this about Vietnam one can see that the struggles of workers and peasants against imperialism also involved struggles against capitalist social relations which the so-called "anti-imperialists" repressed with as much brutality and lies as the imperialists, with whom they often collaborated - and the history of Ireland is no exception.

Would you have supported the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis or would you see that as:

Your question, like Tojiah's, is ridiculous !

I got to say, Roxwell just hit a huge touche against Peter there...

I think what we need is a new thread on a nations right to self determination