No camp 'gains' in Irish Treaty Vote
Jun 6 2008 20:24
Quote:
A survey published by the Irish Times on Friday suggested 35% of people would vote No - more than twice the figure polled two weeks ago - against 30% Yes.It is the first poll to put the Nos in the lead, ahead of Thursday's vote.
Ireland is the only country holding a referendum on the treaty. A No vote would throw the process into chaos.
The other 26 members of the EU are using parliamentary votes to ratify the Lisbon Treaty but Ireland is obliged to hold a referendum because it involves changing the constitution.
While obviously the outcome, one way or the other, means little insomuch as anyone who hates the governments involved anyways, I love the bit further down in the article where its predicted that there will be "Grave consequences" if people have the temerity to vote no, whilst at the same time shouting that its the "No" camp who is scaring voters.
Jun 6 2008 20:37
#2
a no vote would be a good nose-thumbing for political leaders across the European Union
it would be a good thing
Jun 7 2008 06:54
#3
Except of course those political leaders who want a no vote.
Jun 7 2008 18:39
#4
And that a disparate, separated group of national army's and foreign policy machinations are better, or substantively different, than a unified EU one? Not especially. If people are doing campaigns about it, which it seems kind of what the WSM is doing, its to encourage the other idea that all of the above is stupid.
Jun 7 2008 23:57
#5
Not especially. If people are doing campaigns about it, which it seems kind of what the WSM is doing, its to encourage the other idea that all of the above is stupid.
Not sure what you mean about the WSM campaign Sean
Jun 8 2008 08:28
#6
Demogorgon303 wrote:
Except of course those political leaders who want a no vote.
to be honest, there aren't that many of these left
Jun 8 2008 08:29
#7
.
Jun 9 2008 09:17
#8
Quote:
to be honest, there aren't that many of these left
In Britain, there's a substantial and vocal minority of the bourgeoisie that are against European integration. They range from the "Eurosceptics" is all three main political parties to the far right UK Independence Party. Several tabloids are wildly Eurosceptic as are the two most right-wing broadsheets, the Telegraph and the Times.
In 2003 an ICM poll of executives in Britain showed over 60% thought Britain's treaties with Europe should be "renegotiated", a common call from the Eurosceptic lobby.
All these people were overjoyed when the first incarnation of this treaty was defeated in referendums a year or so ago. They will be overjoyed if the current incarnation is defeated too.
Calling for a "no" vote lines up with the Eurosceptic bourgeoisie across Europe. Calling for a "yes" vote lines up with the bourgeoisie who think their exploitative interests are best served by "partnership" with other bourgeoisies. Every vote in the masquerade of bourgeois democracy is a vote against the working class.
Jun 9 2008 11:13
#9
long live oversimplifications
A superstate is obviously no different to a nation state because neither of them are anarchist communism.
Of course cosnervative elements of the ruling class oppose the EU, that takes power away from them and puts it in the hands of other rulers. But it also has demonstratably bad effects on the workers. We both should oppose the EU but for different reasons.
Jun 9 2008 12:28
#10
Of course, we should oppose the EU but only because it is a form of capitalism, just as any nation state is. The problem with referendums and participating in them is that (a) it presents the idea the working class has a say in this society and (b) it gives us the choices that the bourgeoisie choose to give us. Whatever choice we make, we support a part of the bourgeoisie and thus the capitalist system.
Workers will get no benefit whatever the outcome of this referendum and thus have no interest in participating in it. Their only interest is to struggle against the whole capitalist system.
Jun 9 2008 17:05
#11
David UK wrote:
We both should oppose the EU but for different reasons.
that's right. using Demogorgon's argument, demands for higher wages would be 'bourgeois' if the Labour Party also thought that wages should be higher.
demogorgon wrote:
Workers will get no benefit whatever the outcome of this referendum
that's wrong. the EU further distances the workers from formal political decision-making, and in the process makes it easier to implement neoliberal policies that worsen the working conditions and living standards of workers. If the EU is delegitimized, these kinds of policies get harder to implement and so a worsening of worker's lives is prevented.
Jun 9 2008 19:24
#12
Quote:
that's right. using Demogorgon's argument, demands for higher wages would be 'bourgeois' if the Labour Party also thought that wages should be higher.
No. Using his argument, arguing that electing or ratifying some referendum would lead to a sustained, longterm raise in wages would be bourgeois.
Quote:
that's wrong. the EU further distances the workers from formal political decision-making, and in the process makes it easier to implement neoliberal policies that worsen the working conditions and living standards of workers. If the EU is delegitimized, these kinds of policies get harder to implement and so a worsening of worker's lives is prevented.
The gulf between anyone and formal political decision making is already uncrossable, even for someone who lives in a moderately large city. My own city council contest recently saw over half a million dollars spent on ONE seat. And that was for ONE district in a city with a metro area that covers 300K people.
As others have pointed out before, libertarian communism/anarchism is more than merely decentralized, local bourgeoisie politics. It has to be, for the reasons pointed out above;any moderately well sized city, or local area, of a capitalist nature, will be completely out of the hands of anyone who lives there. It will instead become the fiefdom of local elites.
My less than enthusiastic response for "local is better" might stem from the fact that I live in an area where advocates of "local control" don't have the patina of socialism; if the state legislature of South Carolina were to have more powers devolved to it, I can assure you, it wouldn't be better for anyone involved.
I don't doubt the sincerity of some people who believe that if they were to just be able to cut off a territorial portion of the world, they could somehow construct a place they want to see without interference. But this is a pipe dream; capitalism and its proponents don't like spaces that buck the trend, and they sure as hell don't make peace with it, unless it is in someway or another still reliant upon the larger capitalist system.
Jun 9 2008 20:44
#13
Sean Siberio wrote:
Quote:
that's right. using Demogorgon's argument, demands for higher wages would be 'bourgeois' if the Labour Party also thought that wages should be higher.No. Using his argument, arguing that electing or ratifying some referendum would lead to a sustained, longterm raise in wages would be bourgeois.
Well, this seems to be the crux of his argument:
demogorgon wrote:
Calling for a "no" vote lines up with the Eurosceptic bourgeoisie across Europe
which does seem to be saying that the main problem with the no vote is that it is also supported by the bourgeoisie.
sean siberio wrote:
Quote:
that's wrong. the EU further distances the workers from formal political decision-making, and in the process makes it easier to implement neoliberal policies that worsen the working conditions and living standards of workers. If the EU is delegitimized, these kinds of policies get harder to implement and so a worsening of worker's lives is prevented.The gulf between anyone and formal political decision making is already uncrossable, even for someone who lives in a moderately large city. My own city council contest recently saw over half a million dollars spent on ONE seat. And that was for ONE district in a city with a metro area that covers 300K people.
As others have pointed out before, libertarian communism/anarchism is more than merely decentralized, local bourgeoisie politics. It has to be, for the reasons pointed out above;any moderately well sized city, or local area, of a capitalist nature, will be completely out of the hands of anyone who lives there. It will instead become the fiefdom of local elites.
My less than enthusiastic response for "local is better" might stem from the fact that I live in an area where advocates of "local control" don't have the patina of socialism; if the state legislature of South Carolina were to have more powers devolved to it, I can assure you, it wouldn't be better for anyone involved.
I don't doubt the sincerity of some people who believe that if they were to just be able to cut off a territorial portion of the world, they could somehow construct a place they want to see without interference. But this is a pipe dream; capitalism and its proponents don't like spaces that buck the trend, and they sure as hell don't make peace with it, unless it is in someway or another still reliant upon the larger capitalist system.
I think your misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying local is better. I'm saying that there are established political processes within national-level politics (national unions, national media debates, national parties, national elections), etc. - all of which are obviously imperfect, and I don't support them, but they do act to a certain extent as buffers on the extent to which neoliberal policies can be imposed. None of these really exist at the level of the European Union - which is why European integration is so popular with the European bourgeoisie.
I'm not arguing for local councilism.
A rejection of European integration doesn't have to be support for the nation state. It can also be a rejection of an attempt to make the state-system even worse.
Jun 9 2008 22:35
#14
Quote:
I'm not saying local is better. I'm saying that there are established political processes within national-level politics (national unions, national media debates, national parties, national elections), etc. - all of which are obviously imperfect, and I don't support them, but they do act to a certain extent as buffers on the extent to which neoliberal policies can be imposed.
You ARE saying local is better, right after you say it isn't. You are defending the idea that the "established political processes within national-level politics" are qualitatively better than that that comes from the EU, that they exist as some "buffer" from bad things. Thats nonsense. The "national political processes" are the machinations which deprived working people years before EU integration was a political reality.
The problem isn't "neo-liberal" policies, which are only merely one manifestation of working class robbery, but any and all bourgeoisie policies, including those advocated in defense of native industry and employment IF its not directed by and arguing for worker control (but rather in argument for either capitalist owners or state-capitalism).
I understand, obviously, this sounds like an argument for "all of it or none of it". And I also get that you can be against the EU and nation-states; but getting involved in campaigning for or against an EU referendum is almost bordering on dishonest. Either we don't really believe our own statements when we say that electoral politics are rigged, or we're complete political opportunists.
Jun 9 2008 23:07
#15
Agree entirely with Sean on this. We have to be extremely careful about using the term neoliberalism at all. At best it is just a particular form of state capitalism, one often opposed by leftsts and 'alternative worldists' who favour a more overt intervention by the state in the economy. But so-called neo-liberal regimes are also based on a very powerful state apparatus. If Thatcherism and Blairism are the model, then it is a model for growing state interference in every area of social life.
It is an illusion to think that one form of capitalist organisation will defend workers' living standards better or less worse than another. All are compelled to attack living and working conditions and workers can only defend themselves through their own methods. Making wage demands is a working class method - thinking that a referendum or its result can protect workers is not.
Jun 10 2008 07:58
#16
The only way the working class gets higher wages is when it fights for them. And, in fact, in modern capitalism the best we can generally hope for is to maintain our living standards let alone improve them. Real wages have been falling since the 70s in most countries, no matter what government has been in power and whether it's American neo-liberalism or European "social capitalism". No vote can or will change that because the crisis is at the roots of capitalism, not the particular political form of the superstructure be that "democracy" (of whatever stripe) or "dictatorship".
The EU won't distance the workers from formal decision making. This is simply a leftist version of the anti-europe brigade's argument - "the EU is undemocractic". Replace "workers" with "the British people" and you have the same thing. But workers have absolutely no say whatsoever in the decision making of the bourgeoisie in local, national or transnational government anyway. Moving in or out of the EU won't make a blind bit of difference.
We live in the dictatorship of capitalism, the class rule of the bourgeoisie. The days when the working class could win concessions through parliament and democratism are long over. The only way the proletariat can express its class interests is directly through struggle.
Jun 10 2008 08:47
#17
Sean Siberio wrote:
You ARE saying local is better, right after you say it isn't. You are defending the idea that the "established political processes within national-level politics" are qualitatively better than that that comes from the EU
but I'm not saying this on the basis of geographical locality - I'm saying which institution is most depoliticized
I'm saying politicized is better (however imperfectly)
sean wrote:
when we say that electoral politics are rigged
as far as I know, this isn't the anarchist critique of electoral politics - it certainly isn't mine
the problem with electoral politics is that they hand decision-making over to a political elite that has a vested interest in the continued subordination of those who vote for them. This has nothing to do with vote-rigging.
Jun 10 2008 11:37
#18
It's depressing reading some of the comments from the "purist anarchists". What world are you living in if you think that voting No is siding with one side of the bourgeoisie and therefore Anarchists should abstain..
It;s a fact that there is a European Union, it's a fact that it's market driven and it's a fact that those of us who inhabit the real world and recognise that our lives are governed by these institutions ( like it or not they are) will be affected by the outcome of this Treaty.
The lisbon Treaty allows the EU introduce a clause which gives the EU the right to extend it's powers without the need for another Treaty - How will this not affect me? What if extending their powers means introducing a clause in the Treaty that allows the EU call up all males over 20 and under 25 to serve in National Armies and EU battlegroups?
Irish Tax payers will , if the treaty is passed, be paying 10 billion each year to the EU armenents fund. As the state controls eduction and the health service I'd rather see my money spent on those areas rather than building up an EU Army.
A Yes win will lead to the further erosion of Irish Neutrality (thats's possibly too Nationalist for some) an EU Superstate, increased spending on Arms, further Irish involvement in proxy wars such as the one Irish trops are engaged in in Chad and the Privitisation of Public services. How do these changes in the EU not affect me?
It's ridicolous to say that Europe can be more 1950's Social Democratic or a better/nicer form of Capitalism which is the argument some on the Left are using. Like most on here I'd love to see the EU and other State institutions smashed with workers taking control of their lives and jobs. Unfortunatley as that doesn't seem likely to be happening any time soon I'll be voting No and in an attempt to halt the advance of Neo-Liberal anti worker policies. A No vote will also bloody the noses of those fence jumping cunts in Labour and their cuntish friends in Fine Gael, FF, SIPTU, IBEC and the Catholic Bishops.
Some of the Anarchist's on here arguing against voting remind me of those that marched with the Venezualen Elite against Chavez because Chavez is a Leninist/whatever.
The Treaty isn't an arguent over whether or not you believe in the State it's institutions and the EU it's asking you whether or not you want things to stay as they are or whether you want your liberties further eroded.
Jun 10 2008 12:27
#19
kbranno wrote:
It's depressing reading some of the comments from the "purist anarchists". What world are you living in if you think that voting No is siding with one side of the bourgeoisie
to be fair, I think they'd rather call themselves left communists.
Jun 10 2008 12:57
#20
Quote:
The lisbon Treaty allows the EU introduce a clause which gives the EU the right to extend it's powers without the need for another Treaty - How will this not affect me? What if extending their powers means introducing a clause in the Treaty that allows the EU call up all males over 20 and under 25 to serve in National Armies and EU battlegroups?
What about the powers that the various national states already have to introduce conscription?
Quote:
Irish Tax payers will , if the treaty is passed, be paying 10 billion each year to the EU armenents fund. As the state controls eduction and the health service I'd rather see my money spent on those areas rather than building up an EU Army.
In other words, capitalism can be reformed. It can be a nice capitalism as long as we stay out of the EU. Of course, the reality is that there will be less and less spent on health and education regardless of what happens with the EU.
Quote:
A Yes win will lead to the further erosion of Irish Neutrality (thats's possibly too Nationalist for some) an EU Superstate, increased spending on Arms, further Irish involvement in proxy wars such as the one Irish trops are engaged in in Chad and the Privitisation of Public services. How do these changes in the EU not affect me?
Irish neutrality is a myth. Its "neutrality" is simply the product of its pygmy-status compared to the major powers. It would quite happily annex Northern Ireland if it had the strength but it doesn't. The "privatisation of public services" is another myth. Whether state-owned or private-owned, all these services are going to be cut back. "Privatisation" is simply a formal transfer of ownership used as a cover for these attacks on the working class by the entire bourgeoisie. When services are "nationalised" people are generally laid off too.
Quote:
It's ridicolous to say that Europe can be more 1950's Social Democratic or a better/nicer form of Capitalism which is the argument some on the Left are using.
No-one on this thread has said this. However, it's certainly true that some on the left support Europe because of its "social" nature. In Britain, one focus of right-wing opposition to Europe is precisely all the legislation that supposedly protects workers rights.
Quote:
Like most on here I'd love to see the EU and other State institutions smashed with workers taking control of their lives and jobs.
Instead you support them by participating in the voting process.
Quote:
A No vote will also bloody the noses of those fence jumping cunts in Labour and their cuntish friends in Fine Gael, FF, SIPTU, IBEC and the Catholic Bishops.
And pat the backs of Sinn Fein and the minority of the bourgeoisie they represent, not to mention all the other bourgeois euro-sceptic movements across Europe.
Quote:
The Treaty isn't an arguent over whether or not you believe in the State it's institutions and the EU it's asking you whether or not you want things to stay as they are or whether you want your liberties further eroded.
The assault on our so-called liberties (which really amount to our right to be slaves) is occuring in all of the industrialised countries. The EU is simply the particular tactic that some bourgeoisies are using to pursue it. This is a general trend for capitalism as a whole and cannot be halted except by destroying the entire capitalist system.
Quote:
to be fair, I think they'd rather call themselves left communists
Myself and Alf are left-communists. I don't know how Sean Siberio would describe himself but the arguments he's presented so far on this thread are fundamentally correct.
Jun 10 2008 17:17
#21
Quote:
The assault on our so-called liberties (which really amount to our right to be slaves) is occuring in all of the industrialised countries. The EU is simply the particular tactic that some bourgeoisies are using to pursue it..
Right, fine, it's all very well saying that a certain law or treaty is just the means by which the bourgeoisie attack the working class, but if you're not willing to stuggle against those laws, how do you intend to counterattack? If you can accept that the EU or privatisation are just means to a certain end, why can't you accept that fighting against these things can also be a means to an end?
Jun 10 2008 17:40
#22
madashell wrote:
Quote:
The assault on our so-called liberties (which really amount to our right to be slaves) is occuring in all of the industrialised countries. The EU is simply the particular tactic that some bourgeoisies are using to pursue it..Right, fine, it's all very well saying that a certain law or treaty is just the means by which the bourgeoisie attack the working class, but if you're not willing to stuggle against those laws, how do you intend to counterattack? If you can accept that the EU or privatisation are just means to a certain end, why can't you accept that fighting against these things can also be a means to an end?
There's plenty of examples of fighting against specific laws which have been decent to a greater or lesser extent - the protests against the <a href="http://www.urban75.org/photos/protest/cjb.html">Criminal Justice Bill</a> or the CPE spring to mind. Although of course anything like this tends to gain momentum and become more interesting when it begins to move beyond the specifics of a particular piece of legislation.
Hence while I might fight against the privatisation of a local health unit, or a city academy or whatever - I'd be careful to emphasise how this is an attack on wages/conditions etc. rather than banging on about saving public services and worrying about formal ownership. Same as housing transfer is more an issue about leases and rents than about who owns it. Councils aren't exactly popular or effective landlords either and 'Defend Council Housing' or 'Defend the NHS', to me at least, tend to gloss over how shit they are as institutions - quite capable of raising rents, not doing repairs, shutting down units - without having to be privatised.
I don't see how the treaty maps onto anything like a CJB or CPE though, nor do I see how campaigning for a referendum vote is 'fighting against' - are online petitions 'fighting against'?
I'm also pretty sure the anarchists supporting campaigning on this referendum would remain critical of any group calling for a vote against Sarkozy due to the CPE, or a vote for Labour against the Tories on the CJB - but IMO it's similar logic to a vote between nation state and EU even if it has a direct democracy varnish and is kinda sorta single issue.
Jun 10 2008 18:05
#23
catch wrote:
I don't see how the treaty maps onto anything like a CJB or CPE though, nor do I see how campaigning for a referendum vote is 'fighting against' - are online petitions 'fighting against'?I'm also pretty sure the anarchists supporting campaigning on this referendum would remain critical of any group calling for a vote against Sarkozy due to the CPE, or a vote for Labour against the Tories on the CJB - but IMO it's similar logic to a vote between nation state and EU even if it has a direct democracy varnish and is kinda sorta single issue.
I'd agree with you that calling for a vote in a referendum one way or the other is kind of leftist and shit, I just find this "the only way to stop the attacks is to smash capitalism" stuff kind of silly, at best it's something we all know already, at worst it's an excuse for the worst kind of utopian stupidity.
Jun 10 2008 18:45
#24
madashell wrote:
I'd agree with you that calling for a vote in a referendum one way or the other is kind of leftist and shit, I just find this "the only way to stop the attacks is to smash capitalism" stuff kind of silly, at best it's something we all know already
Judging by many of the contributions on this thread so far, apparently not.
Jun 10 2008 20:15
#25
madashell wrote:
I just find this "the only way to stop the attacks is to smash capitalism" stuff kind of silly, at best it's something we all know already, at worst it's an excuse for the worst kind of utopian stupidity.
Well yeah it's a bit like other mantras like "this is why we need anarcho-syndicalist unions" or "this is why we need a new mass party of the working class" at the conclusion of so many lazy articles. But arguing for a vote is just as abstract and divorced from reality as any 'revolution now' sloganeering - even if it's presented as pragmatic.
Jun 10 2008 21:59
#26
madashell: the issue is not the idea that 'nothing can be done until we smash capitalism', but how do we fight now to defend ourselves against capitalism's attacks - on a class basis or on the terrain of the enemy? You must know perfectly well that the ICC took part in the struggle against the CPE in France, precisely because we saw it as a proletarian movement.
Jun 11 2008 22:34
#27
"What about the powers that the various national states already have to introduce conscription?"
Ireland doesn't and by voting No I'm going a bit of the way in ensuring it stays that way.
"In other words, capitalism can be reformed. It can be a nice capitalism as long as we stay out of the EU. Of course, the reality is that there will be less and less spent on health and education regardless of what happens with the EU."
Nope, capitalism cannot be reformed where did you get that from? Once again you refuse to recognise simple facts. If the Treaty is passed tomorrow Ireland will have ot give the EU Armenents fund 10 Billion a year. Possibly a stupid argument of mine to say I'd rather see this spent on Health and Education when I know the Statye wont. But what I can't understand is your cynical attitude to the important Fact that Irleand (and I presume other EU countries) will have to start pumping citizens taxes into building up an EU ammo dump. Voting No to stop this happen is reason enough to vote No.
"Irish neutrality is a myth. Its "neutrality" is simply the product of its pygmy-status compared to the major powers."
Where did I say it wasn't a myth? I said this Treaty will lead to a further erosion of our Neutrality- I'll refer you back to the 10 billion the Irish State will have to give the EU for Arms.
" It would quite happily annex Northern Ireland if it had the strength but it doesn't.
That's actually laughable and I'm not sure how that proves your point on anything.
"No-one on this thread has said this"
I know I was refering to the arguments put forward by the United left front over here.
"Instead you support them by participating in the voting process."
No, I recognise the fact that I live in a State that is capitalist and a member of the EU and I recognise that as bad as that may be.. pretending that by voting against a Treaty that will further damage workers somehow makes me a supporter of the State once again points out that you are not living in the real world.
"And pat the backs of Sinn Fein and the minority of the bourgeoisie they represent"
Whose back are you patting by arguing for Anarchists to abstain? You're playing inot the hands of the State and the EU and Big Business. Also, though Gerry and the others bearded ones may flirt with Bush and others it's laughable to ignore the hughe working class vote they command in Dublin the North and elsewhere.
I can't get my head around why a Left Communist would side with the State and the Market and ask people to abstain from voting in a treaty which workers all over Europe (who have been deprivied of a vote) are begging the Irish voters to vote No on their behalf... Mind boggling stuff
Jun 12 2008 00:40
#28
Quote:
Ireland doesn't and by voting No I'm going a bit of the way in ensuring it stays that way.
Neither does America, and that doesn't stop it from having the biggest fucking military on the earth. In fact, the military brass prefers it that way; they don't have to deal with malcontents and others that don't want to be there.
Quote:
Also, though Gerry and the others bearded ones may flirt with Bush and others it's laughable to ignore the hughe working class vote they command in Dublin the North and elsewhere.
Is this supposed to be impressive? Lots of electoral groups get alot of "working class" votes, but that doesn't mean jack in a world of increasingly less voter turnout, lack of real political difference, and a broader system that doesn't favor anyone who bucks trends.
Quote:
I can't get my head around why a Left Communist would side with the State and the Market and ask people to abstain from voting in a treaty which workers all over Europe (who have been deprivied of a vote) are begging the Irish voters to vote No on their behalf... Mind boggling stuff
Wait, how would voting against the EU, in favor of a stronger nation state, be siding against the state? Certainly, SOME in the state apparti like the idea of the EU; others don't as well, and envision I'm sure some sort of nationalist claptrap.
This is absurd; regionalism and devolution and localisms and every other term for empowering local bureaucrats over other ones is absolutely bullshit. Like I said before, my opposition stems from the fact that there is not a history of vaguely socialist nationalism projects in my country; most people who favor local autonomy want to do so they can have free reign to become mini-tyrants. I do not share the delusions some on here evidently have that there is the slightest bit of difference between politicians of a local nature and those of a larger federal body.
Jun 12 2008 08:03
#29
Quote:
Ireland doesn't and by voting No I'm going a bit of the way in ensuring it stays that way.
If there was a state of war, all states have mechanisms for introducing conscription. The main reason they don't is because of fear of a militant working class response.
Quote:
Nope, capitalism cannot be reformed where did you get that from? Once again you refuse to recognise simple facts. If the Treaty is passed tomorrow Ireland will have ot give the EU Armenents fund 10 Billion a year. Possibly a stupid argument of mine to say I'd rather see this spent on Health and Education when I know the Statye wont. But what I can't understand is your cynical attitude to the important Fact that Irleand (and I presume other EU countries) will have to start pumping citizens taxes into building up an EU ammo dump. Voting No to stop this happen is reason enough to vote No.
As opposed to building up their own ammo dumps? Are you seriously suggesting the EU is the only factor behind military spending in Europe? Firstly, the EU is not a military alliance and unless something radical changes (like Germany, France and the UK suddenly having a total convergence of imperialist interests) this will never be anything other than a pipe dream for delusional EU beureaucrats. There will be no way that EU forces will ever be used for anything which one or more of the major European powers oppose without fracturing the whole EU edifice. However, it makes nice bait for minor countries like Ireland who have no other way of preserving their sovereignty except in alliance with other minor powers.
Quote:
Where did I say it wasn't a myth? I said this Treaty will lead to a further erosion of our Neutrality- I'll refer you back to the 10 billion the Irish State will have to give the EU for Arms.
If Irish neutrality is a myth then what sense is there to talk about that neutrality being eroded? The fact is you think this neutrality does exist or the loss of it wouldn't exercise you so.
All nation states are compelled to be imperialist. The only difference between them is their relative strength and capacity to carry this out. If they are weak, they are generally forced to line up with other powers. That's why Ireland, for all its pretences to "neutrality" effectively sided with Britain in WW2 and supplied information to the CIA all the way through the Cold War. More recently it supported both the conflicts in Kosovo and Afghanistan. The question for the Irish bourgeoisie is how to best pursue those interests - some of them think the EU, others don't. The "no" vote is just taking the side of those who don't.
Quote:
No, I recognise the fact that I live in a State that is capitalist and a member of the EU and I recognise that as bad as that may be.. pretending that by voting against a Treaty that will further damage workers somehow makes me a supporter of the State once again points out that you are not living in the real world.
Support the lesser evil, the rallying cries of leftists and Trotskyists everywhere. You've completely ignored the point that workers will end up being damaged, as you put it, regardless of what happens with this treaty.
Quote:
Whose back are you patting by arguing for Anarchists to abstain? You're playing inot the hands of the State and the EU and Big Business. Also, though Gerry and the others bearded ones may flirt with Bush and others it's laughable to ignore the huge working class vote they command in Dublin the North and elsewhere.
Nonsense. I'm not simply calling for workers to abstain. I'm calling on them to abstain and develop their class struggle directly against the bosses and the state, making class demands on a class terrain. Democratism is diametrically opposed to this as is demonstrated time and time again throughout history when it has been used to derail working class struggle.
The fact lots of workers happen to vote for Sinn Fein is irrelevant. Workers voted for the Nazis, Margaret Thatcher, George Bush, Tony Blair, Sarkozy and many others. Does any of this mean revolutionaries should support these factions? Of course not. This is a symptom of the domination of bourgeois ideology. The only way to break outside of this domination is the development of class struggle, not supporting minoritarian factions of the bourgeoisie.
Jun 12 2008 08:08
#30
Sean Siberio wrote:
Like I said before, my opposition stems from the fact that there is not a history of vaguely socialist nationalism projects in my country; most people who favor local autonomy want to do so they can have free reign to become mini-tyrants.
yes, but can't you have a degree of appreciation of different contexts - we're not talking about 'your' country (although i should remind you that the working class, of course, has no country) - we're talking about the state system in Europe. This isn't an abstract and pure argument about state forms - it's about 'do you support the changes being made to the state system?' - the answer, surely, is no.
sean siberio wrote:
I do not share the delusions some on here evidently have that there is the slightest bit of difference between politicians of a local nature and those of a larger federal body.
this is getting tiresome. No-one has argued that the politicians are different at different levels - the point is that European integration is about granting more power to politicians in general.
Surely a victory for the no vote is a victory for the WSM?