OPAR (Mexico) - Solidarity with the Palestinian Resistance

Israel=Nazi, extermination etc. only shows how little this group pretends to know about the conflict.

Which fighters are these? Hamas, Islamic Jihad? Random Palestinians? I would follow some of the other posters here who said that it is the people fleeing who instead express the dignity of a class, who refuse to die for the fundamentalist ruling militia.

as sphinx suggests, political support for 'the resistance' is just romanticised rhetoric - it's either meaningless or is a euphemism for hamas, since they're the primary military opposition to the IDF.

i think this is confused - who is actually being supported then, hamas's rival non-governing militants? can you name any of them? or is this more abstraction?

at the risk of sounding pessimistic, i don't think anti-Israel sentiments in the palestinian territories are on account of a desire for libertarian socialism.

i mean i'm glad they're trying to formulate a statement that rejects the palestinian ruling groups, but it seems the romanticism of armed struggle still holds some sway. i would recomment Django's recent article as a good exposition of an internationalist approach...

On the other hand....

We recently published this clearly internationalist statement on the war in Gaza on our website in Spanish. It's by the Grupo Socialista Libertario in Mexico, a group which has been discussing with the ICC's section in Mexico - they plan to hold a common public meeting soon.

http://es.internationalism.org/node/2444

Anyone up for translating it?

It would be good to see statements from groups collated somewhere, to see who took an internationalist view on the conflict and who didn't. I might do this if I get the time.

Why? So we can smugly reassure ourselves of our better political understanding? Or should we engage 'them' in debate (but can 'we' do this without just formally pointing out 'their' flaws and hoping 'they' will see the error of 'their' ways)? And who are 'us'?

Why not?

Well why not? I think the range of perspectives on the situation which have come out of the anarchist movement is interesting, given that they can range from solid internationalism to defence of "national self-determination" and/or implicit support for Hamas. Surely theres a lot of worth in moving anarchist analysis forward, if we're organising and acting on the basis of it.

Theres no sectarian motive if thats what you're trying to say, as I think the amount of co-operation that came out of this is very positive and something to built on in future efforts, amongst other things.

i think django's idea is a useful one, and his offer to take the time is generous. seeing truly antibourgeois and antinationalist statements at least in one place - viz., here - has been very encouraging, and having other statements ready at hand for comparison can only improve the response.

Well Django didn't use the word 'us', but I will tell you who I think that 'we' are. All of the political currents who are trying to put forward an internationalist perspective. Within that definition of us (and only commenting on UK groups), I see the AF, and other comrades including Solfed who distributed their leaflet, the ICC, the CWO and any other comrades who attempted to put forward an internationalist response.

As to whether we should engage 'them' in debate, well yes we should. Our current as I think do all the other currents mentioned above believes that workers need to discuss together. I would imagine that all of us see it as an important part of the revolutionary process.

Of course we should point out flaws. Whether they are 'our' flaws or their 'flaws'. The alternative is not pointing them out, which is dishonest or bandwagon chasing.

There are two choices. One is working work towards building a working class internationalist movement. It involves co-operation (maybe with people you don't like), hard discussions and a struggle for clarification, (which means continuing to be comradely however hard it gets), standing by each other when we are attacked for arguing an internationalist agenda (and I would imagine that our comrades here in Turkey have suffered from these things more than most), and yes being critical of people who we do not believe are acting in the interests of the working class.

The alternative is not to criticise, to say 'they' can solve 'their' own problems in their country, and to cheer on the 'resistance'.

It is your choice.

Devrim

Well the creation of a revolutionary league table of Internationalism, will only lead to formalistic debate not concrete engagement. Whilst the development of more mutual co-operation is an encouraging sign, I am really not convinced this is the way to go,, as it will likely lead to antagonism and point scoring. Dev your either/or strawman isn't helpful. You may well think that 'winning the battle of ideas' within a tiny milieu automatically leads to some historic gain for the working class, but I am a little skeptical.

I don't think that is the point. It is which groups are internationalist and which groups are pro war.

Criticise someone for making a straw man and then construct one immediately afterwards, superb writing Alan.

Devrim

I'd imagine that "tiny milieu" has little hope of broadening its appeal if it can't get its own act together first. And a first step towards that goal would be a mature approach to discussions and co-operation around what we do agree on. Sectarianism is refusing to acknowledge such a milieu exists and/or putting the interests of your own group above the interests of this milieu and the wider working class.

As for those who didn't take an internationalist position, it is important that they be identified. This isn't a matter of point-scoring - it's a matter of combatting bourgeois ideologies dressed in working class (be it Marxist or Anarchist) colours.

I think Djangos' idea is a good one.

it could be, in principle. but you'd need to be very careful how you go about it. Django's already been labelled "sectarian filth" for politely criticising the FdCA statement (which they subsequently admitted contained a 'grave error'). if it was to be done, perhaps inviting all the groups to have a serious (tightly modded if necessary) discussion, or at least informing them of the intent beforehand, would be a good idea.

Too true. Given the car crash that relations in some parts of the left-communist milieu over the years has been, I certainly don't think such tentative movements in an even wider milieu is going to be easy.

The difficulty of the task notwithstanding, the world situation demands we make the attempt and I do feel we'd be failing the working class if we don't try.

Back in the 70s, when a lot of left communist groups were forming in very similar conditions today (massive open economic crisis, the reappearance of struggle), there was an attempted regroupment by a number of tendencies through conferences and the like. The ICC itself was formed as part of this effort as was the IBRP, but efforts stalled and eventually led to decades of acrimony as well as the extinction of other groups.

I think there are lessons to be learned from this experience which will probably be valid for the future. The ICC have a collection of articles on the conferences, some written at the time, others more retrospectively.

Obviously we are nowhere near such a point of such an effort being repeated but I remain positive that one day we will and maybe those involved will manage not to make quite such a hash of it this time.

I was only planning on putting links together on a forum post or something for reference, not writing any critique of the global movement or making any "league tables". Given that there are a number of attempts being made from different places to move the social anarchist movement in more effective directions it'd be interesting to see what areas the libertarian communist movement is weakest on with the hope of making it the best it can be. I don't think shying away from addressing important issues where organised anarchism, globally, has shown as much weakness as strength on helps us in that.

As a result of the reaction to the AF's efforts around the Gaza massacre a number of us have made a proposal to write a pamphlet-length text putting forward the internationalist argument (as the communist critique of "nations") at length with discussion of relevant, contemporary examples of national liberation politics. This would be part of the process of elaborating an accessible, contemporary libertarian communist politics that the writing of the industrial strategy* has begun, and I think given examples such as the above and the Alternative Libertaire statement which got posted elsewhere a necessary one.

*Which due to potential effects on policy needs to go through a national conference, meaning it will be available if agreed later on this year.

The GSL in Mexico have published the AF statement on their site; it's also been posted to the comments section of our Spanish translation of the Tree of Judas text:

Submitted by eleo-nora (no verificado) on Enero 20, 2009 - 11:24pm.
A continuación pongo la traducción de una declaración aparecida en la web de la Federación Anarquista en Inglaterra (http://www.af-north.org/?q=war+in+gaza) y que ha sido distribuida por esos compañeros en varios puntos de su país. La traducción al español también la pueden encontrar en la web del GSL (http://webgsl.wordpress.com/).
¡Saludos!

I am not Alan hence my user name isn't Alan.
You made a claim that either I support your position or i must support a reactionary one.Basically the same argument that some have been making about not criticsing Hamas in the face of the IDF onslaught, dressed up in left communism clothes. I suggested a reason why, I think you have chosen to do this and you have avoided replying.

Sorry for some reason I thought it was Alan. I don't know why.

Sorry, I don't even understand what you are talking about here.

Devrim

But isn't sphinx romanticising assent (people who flee the violence are expressing the dignity of the noble working class by refusing to die for the fundamentalist mlitia--this despite the fact that Israel is not fighting fundamentalists but the people of Gaza en masse, with Hamas serving as a pretext for well planned and politically-timed assault). Fetishising concession is just as stupid as fetishizing armed struggle.

why is it fetishising? running the fuck away from bombardment is just sensible, no? i mean i wouldn't use the phrase "dignity of the class", but i don't think sphinx is necessarily romanticising refugees, it's fucking shit - risk of being caught in cross-fire, shot by the IDF, shot by Hamas for 'collaborating' for trying to cross israeli lines, shot at by egyptian border guards for trying to cross the border to relative safety etc.

I'm not sure what dignity is to be gained from staying in the burnt out wreckage of buildings throwing stones at soldiers with machine guns either. The fact of the matter is that there is no class dignity in anything the workers of Gaza can do - they have been utterly smashed (ideologically and physically) by this assault. The real question is not so much about what Palestinian workers can do because there isn't really anything they can do. It's more about what workers elsewhere in the world can do - and that's push forward their own class struggle against "their" bourgeoisie.

I support Djangos idea. Communist forces are so thinly spread throughout the world it's right that we should try to focus on what we have in common.Before I get shot down, that doesn't mean for a moment trying to minimise political differences or opportunistically create 'fronts'.

Having said that though, some of the responses to it reflect the various levels of sectarianism and 'isolationism' within the political milieu - and ultimately reflect more generally the dispersal and isolation of the working class, as a political force. In many ways it's a more serious problem in the UK than in many other places, as anyone who's ever tried to engage people in a serious discussion on politics can probably testify to.

I think this would be very very useful.

There is a severe lack of a decent introductory-level text on this. We discussed and approached a couple of people about trying to put one together, but it hasn't worked out so far.

I'm sure that people outside the AF might also be interested in helping out with something like this - maybe if you wanted to you could start a thread in the organise forum to discuss it? Because I mean I had previously thought case studies of national liberation movements would be useful indicators of their effect on the working class (North Korea, Vietnam, India etc). But I won't sidetrack this discussion any more.

As for Django's initial suggestion to compile a list of internationalist and nationalist output from libertarian groups on this conflict I think would be a useful reference tool.

A useful refrence tool to do what with?
All this will achieve is a formalistic accountancy, instead of using our understanding to critically engage, we take this as the ending when we it should be beginning. By using an universal template of nationalism (etc) to tick off boxes, so we can all know who the true Internationalists and who psuedo- internationalists are.

It is not hard to understand, you set out an either/or arguement exactly the same as the one being used by people to attack those who criticise Hamas that they must therefore support Israel. I then gave, as a quip, a plausable reason for your behaviour. That is not constructing a strawman it is speculating as to why you are behaving in a particular way.

Just in case you have forgotten

Oh sorry, I didn't realise it was amateur psychology hour. Please continue.

Devrim

But I see you don't deny it

It is absurd. It isn't the way we operate at all.

Devrim

Are these really 'exactly the same' arguments, Jason? You either support internationalism or are against it (true); that's hardly equivalent to saying you either support Hamas or you are pro-Israel (false). The properly equivalent argument would be: you are either for Hamas or against Hamas (true).

I agree with Django.