Troubled; An Anarchist Primer on the Occupation of the North of Ireland

This is exactly my point...when anarchists 'address the issue' but with an analysis that isnt to the liking of people with an 'anti-imperialist' axe to grind or a nationalist reading of the history involved, they are simply accused of NOT addressing the issue. Whereas an analysis that that tips the hat to those viewpoints is regarded as an honest attempt to address the issue however flawed.

REVOL68
"Jargon of crappy anti imperialism"LOL
Is that it?
Proves my point!
The DAM pamphlet was In the same bracket I suppose?Blinkered and pointless.

Yes and your talk of atleast someone has tried to address the issue is quite insulting to the anarchists in the north who have had a pretty clear line on the matter for years, even if they have been shouting into a wind of shitty leftist anti imperialist dogma.

Its the English anarchists with this 'disappointing' attitude that most of us in the north are glad exist, because they basically share our analysis and are a refreshing exception to the nonsense that most of the English/British left come out with regarding 'Ireland'.

I dunno but your post was just a series of slogans with no analysis. I mean the fact you think that loyalism and its infiltration by the british state was about cooper fastening imperialism going back 800 years is hikarious. What the fuck was imperialism 800 years ago, capitalism didnt exist ffs, never mind its "final stage". Oh you are using imperialism like a teenager calling his parents fascists.

I actually read the pamphlet. All of it. The whole thing reads like its trying to rehabilitate the IRA, ffs, boasting of the number of servicemen killed, while failing to mention all the civilians killed (and whom it intentionally targeted), ending in the call to arms I quoted above. The anarchist critique in it is weak at best, and seems used more to criticize Sinn Fein and the IRA for rejecting armed struggle than anything else. Honestly, revols off-the-cuff, badly spelt comment* about "The presence of the british state in the [north] is a [legacy] of colonialism [rather than present day imperialism]" is a more insightful anarchist critique than the entire pamphlet! Really!

(*I mean that in a good way, revol. )

PartyBucket
I agree!
I'm not defending Leftist anti-imperialism or Nationalism and would not defend those positions.Im stressing the need for Anarchists to have a set and clear consistent position in order to counter effectively such reactionary viewpoints.Obviously you are at the sharp end and pushing a class analysis where the national question pervades and acts as a barrier to class politics is tougher than for someone espousing the same position from the neighbouring country.

I have never read it, but if it used the terminology you say it did then I think anarchists in the north would have issues with it, and I would be very very disappointed if SolFed were to issue something similar in the present day.

Similar to what? The pamphlet you never read!?

Similar to the description of the contents of said pamphlet as described to me by fremind in post #22.
Did you just start reading at post #39?

Revol68
Obviously you are intent on misreading and indulging in petit minded nonsense.The statement was a brief summary not a magnum opus for Christs sake!

Also apologies for the spelling in my posts, sending from a phone whilst watching our wee occupied 6 counties take on Portugal.

Errr what revol says isn't wrong, but.....

Tommy is probably one of the few remaining intelligent socialist republicans, he's thoughtful and you can engage with him. I massively disagree with him. But if you are looking for a decent history of the Provisional IRA from a socialist who gave most of his life to that organisation and has been one of the most prominent critics of Sinn Fein from the left for that last 15 or so years, then yeah I've heard the book is pretty good.

If you are looking for a decent libertarian communist book on the provos none exist. There are obviously a number of better known books on the provos but everything I"ve heard about Tommy's book is that its pretty good. Its obviously extremely biased and coming from a very specific political angle that is no longer occupied by many people but yeah if you are looking for a book on the troubles or the IRA, I figure its a good place to start. (Assuming you are capable of reading a book critically. )

It and Conor McCabe's 'Sins of Our Fathers' are the two Irish far left books of the last 5 years that I really want to read.

Yes. I don't have a leninist interpretation of imperialism. I think Lenin was wrong then and is wrong now about how imperialism operates.

I think capitalist imperialism is more accurately a description of the imposition of the capitalist state form by one state, in whose territory it does have some form of popular/liberal/bourgeois legitimacy, over a territory, where it does not have legitimacy even in the terms of a liberal bourgeois state.

I'm bowing out of this discussion now because I never find discussion of this issue on libcom useful. Just as amongst Irish anarchists there are a lot of people who are "soft" on national liberation movments, there are lot of people amongst British anarchist who are "soft" on imperialism. See this thread for a kind of amusing example of this. (Fwiw, if you want to know what I think, I basically agree with posi on that thread, and would have a lot of criticisms of David Broder.)

But.... but, if you really want to know what I think about capitalist imperialism vs the leninist ideas of imperialism, I'd recommend Ellen Meiksins Wood's "Empire of Capital". I know its dick-ish to give a link to a book. But we've had this conversation before so I'm only linking to it if you are interested.

PartyBucket!
In relation to your statement re;English Anarchists.
I did stress that the disagreements stemmed from my activist days.That the ones you have encountered are more knowledgeable is good to hear.

Unless you are from the north and question his romaticising of republicanism in which case he just accuses you of being in the PUP.

Ha ha. You aren't in the PUP?

PartyBucket

I'm struggling a bit here, and since you've edited your post to throw in a snipe...
Did you just start reading at post #39?
...I'll explain a little further
I been reading from the start and interesting it is to, but seeing as you've chosen to discredit everything Freemind has thus far said, why choose to accept his opinion on a pamphlet that you haven't read?

No, but some of the people you encounter in lefty circles would nearly make you want to, just for badness.

Edit [double post].

I've disagreed with some of his opinions, not accused him of lying about any factual matters. What he said about the content of the pamphlet would fall into the latter category. You must also have ignored my caveat "if it used the terminology you say it did".

Tommy is frankly full of shite.

The fundamental problem with republican socialism will always be its nationalism no matter how much it seeks to dress it up as anti imperialism. It shouldnt come as a surprise that a tradition born of Connolly's awful marriage of romantic irish nationalism and socialism is fundamentally reactionary, an irish form of socialism for fools.

Oh well, if that's the case...

PartyBucket!
The DAM PAMPHLET I remember reading used terms like "anti unionist"rather than "nationalist"
I left the DAM shortly afterwords and I haven't come across any similar works by SOLFED.
It was the best anarchist take on Ireland I had encountered to that point.If the terminology I used is wrong what do I use ?surely the context counts for something?

Ok from you prevous post (#22):
it also used terminology like "anti-unionist,partition,6counties.."
The problem really with these terms is how they stem from a nationalist reading..."6 counties" (and "26 counties") implies that there is (or would be) somehow something 'natural' about a 32-county Ireland, that it is a natural single political entity, that the partition of Ireland is somehow more unnatural than the border between any other nations. As for 'anti-Unionist' I dont even understand really how it can be a useful term. Are there just 'Unionists' and then 'everybody else'? As an anarchist I am certainly 'anti-Unionist', I am also anti-Nationalist/Republican.

Anti unionist seems like a handy way of avoiding addressing the issue of the nationalism of those who were in conflict with the british state.

It also describes anarchists in northern Ireland, no?

"Anti unionist" and as Anarchists "anti republican" can be used as you said and any discrepancy should be taken care of by context.
Is it possible for Anarchists to use "6counties" in another context from meaning a 32 county Republican term?If not how do we get around this in our propaganda?How do you do this successfully without sacrificing clarity?
The DAM pamphlet is over 20 years old but has Anarchist propaganda moved on considerably since re;Ireland?
Maybe I'm out of touch as I ve not been active for some time but terminology is crucial here and if there is a generally accepted Anarchist line I'd like to see how it applies to the above.

yeah, it includes anarchists, reactionary catholic fundies, SDLP and the Alliance Party ie it's a bullshit meaningless term. A term useless for understanding the sides of let alone the dynamics of the conflict in northern ireland, but a term very useful if you are looking to push a simplistic "analysis" (emphasis on anal) that wishes to gloss over the reactionary nature of republicanism and it's fundamental nationalism.

Yes but we are 'anti-Unionist' as a default result of our antinationalism/internationalism, not as a result of our pining for a 32 county republic or whatever.
Its one of the most glaring errors sadly some anarchists make in their analysis of Northern Ireland that they cant see the difference between being against the British state because it is a state and being against the British state because it is the British state.

I'd put money on it Subversion's was better.