Anarchism, and National Liberation

182 posts / 0 new
Last post
Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Sep 11 2006 13:40
Joseph K. wrote:
John. wrote:
No they're not, it's cos of their geographical location. A Ugandan immigrant there would still have the IDF over his head.

exactly - i don't see why libertarians would want to drag the 'nation' into it.

And if it was on the basis of nationality, over here wouldn't irish people be oppressed in England as well?

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Sep 11 2006 14:05
John. wrote:
And if it was on the basis of nationality, over here wouldn't irish people be oppressed in England as well?

Well occupation is economics but it doesn't mean that the ideology that justifies it cannot extend into areas where it is less necessary. Although I do remember that a lot of Irish Immigrants to the UK came to escape poverty and they were traditionally cheaper. I also remember reading something (I think in libcom library) about workers attacking half-starved Irish scabs. Anti-irish racism isn't as strong as it was John. but it was very strong and it still exists, I just think that once non-white immigration picked up pace it transferred.

Joseph K. wrote:
So even to the extent the occupation is racist, it is not oppressing people on the lines of a 'nation' the Israelis deny exists.

Point of logic, don't most occupiers do this?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Sep 11 2006 14:19
jef costello wrote:
John. wrote:
And if it was on the basis of nationality, over here wouldn't irish people be oppressed in England as well?

Well occupation is economics but it doesn't mean that the ideology that justifies it cannot extend into areas where it is less necessary. Although I do remember that a lot of Irish Immigrants to the UK came to escape poverty and they were traditionally cheaper.

Not because of the occupation, because they were immigrants. I am aware of all that. but according to irish nationalists we do still occupy them.

Quote:
Anti-irish racism isn't as strong as it was John. but it was very strong and it still exists

Does it bollocks. Only inasmuch as discrimination against anyone with a regional accent exists. My gf is "Irish" so she gets free training courses and days off work cos she's an "ethnic minority", but she's more English than me! (Her parents are irish immigrants; she still has nationality. Dual, but still, no one would even know she had irish nationality if she didn't say).

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Sep 11 2006 15:29

So, you people supportive of nat lib struggles here, and wayne price if you're reading - do you support this?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Sep 11 2006 15:36
jef costello wrote:
Joseph K. wrote:
So even to the extent the occupation is racist, it is not oppressing people on the lines of a 'nation' the Israelis deny exists.

Point of logic, don't most occupiers do this?

'the coalition of the willing' are actively promoting the 'iraqi nation' and Israel, to my knowledge, never denied lebanon was a 'nation' in the way it does with the Palestinians (and in lebanon during the occupation the oppression wasn't national either, but ethno-religious realpolitik).

Cardinal Tourettes
Offline
Joined: 1-04-06
Sep 11 2006 16:43
revol68 wrote:

Also do you see any distinction between the national liberation of the IRA and the national liberation of the UVF?

I'd say its a bit like asking if there's a distinction between Leninism and fascism - ie the answer is yes.
They're both the enemy, but not at all enemies are the same (although thats become less true the more capitalism has developed).

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Sep 11 2006 16:48
Joseph K. wrote:
'the coalition of the willing' are actively promoting the 'iraqi nation' and Israel, to my knowledge, never denied lebanon was a 'nation' in the way it does with the Palestinians (and in lebanon during the occupation the oppression wasn't national either, but ethno-religious realpolitik).

Sorry I was thinking of long term occupation, I wasn't really thinking about Lebanon or Iraq.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Sep 11 2006 16:56
jef costello wrote:
Sorry I was thinking of long term occupation, I wasn't really thinking about Lebanon or Iraq.

ok in somewhere like tibet you've probably got a point ... though this all started with lebanon (and 20-odd years was pretty long-term) wink

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Sep 11 2006 17:32

Hi

Quote:
Well I'm not aware that loyalism had any special recourse to racialism or nationalism

I think it's fair to say, on this side of the pond, that Loyalism is associated with old-school Tories and nationalists, eg, BNP/NF. Whereas the republicans found strongist support through things like "Fight Racism!Fight Imperialism!" which sort of gave the game away a bit. That might not count as recourse though.

Quote:
The only difference is that one is seeking to defend it's ill defined "nationalist identity" vis a vis the status quo and the other one is seeking to implement it.

Something of an objectivist, utilitarian, outlook. This discounts, PUP excepted, the socialist ideological configuration of the republicans and their supporters.

Love

LR

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Sep 11 2006 18:02

Hi

I'd agree with all of that.

Quote:
I mean you might as well say by denying the socialist nature of Cuba i'm discounting the socialist ideological configuration of them and their supporters.

Indeed. There is a concrete link between the justice/compassion element of communist ethics and the struggle against imperialism in Cuba and Ireland though. So in saying that, I'd be asserting an underlying socialist ethic of reciprocity.

It’s the oppression inherent in successful imperialism that forces socialists to give support to national liberation struggles, whether they be nationalist or not.

Love

LR

(sorry for the cheeky edit, I confused myself)

Cardinal Tourettes
Offline
Joined: 1-04-06
Sep 11 2006 18:16
revol68 wrote:

The only difference is that one is seeking to defend it's ill defined "nationalist identity" vis a vis the status quo and the other one is seeking to implement it.

Leaving aside whether this really is the only difference, it would still be a significant one.
The extent to which one has a status quo to defend, and the other one doesn't, would tend to make the latter more suited to recuperating potentially radical opposition (should there be such a thing)to existing society, while the former would be more straightforwardly repressive.
(Of course, they are both defensive of the status quo in the deeper sense.)

I can see the point of going "their both the same" - as a kind of short shrift dismissal of both, fair enough, but not strictly true, and a block to understanding if taken to be.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Sep 11 2006 18:27

Hi

revol68 wrote:
No, because national liberation is not just a resistance to occupation, militarism, imperialism etc. It involves the suppression of other non national oppressions, the construction of a "nationalist" perspective through which all events are refracted, and further more the setting up of "national" structures which seeks to express "national interests" and in doing so reifying the concrete perspectives and issues that cut across "the nation" like a thousand fracture lines.

Technically correct. As an analysis it requires a leap of logic and experience that tolerates the suffering of nationalists because you believe the outcome of successfully supporting them will result in even more pain. It’s ostensibly a bit callous, and implies quite powerful predictive powers, but I like it. You can see how those with a purely emotional attachment to socialist ethics would find it difficult to resist rallying to the nationalist cause under circumstances of extreme oppression. Similar in ways, and I’m not being flippant here, to third worldism and animal rights.

Cardinal Tourettes wrote:
The extent to which one has a status quo to defend, and the other one doesn't, would tend to make the latter more suited to recuperating potentially radical opposition (should there be such a thing)to existing society, while the former would be more straightforwardly repressive.

I rest my case. Of course given that the working class had already developed beyond a trade unionist consciousness when Marx’s piles were still barely formed, they see this for the rank opportunism and manipulation that it is.

Love

LR

Cardinal Tourettes
Offline
Joined: 1-04-06
Sep 11 2006 20:12
revol68 wrote:
Well yeah they clearly aren;t the same otherwise they wouldn't be knocking seven shades of shit out of each other and the rest of the population. But from the perspective of libertarian communism they are fundamentally the same.

No they're not, and the reason why they're not is not because they're knocking seven shades of shit out of each other. Identical twins can do that, or Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

revol68 wrote:

What makes "national liberation" so dangerous to the working class is exactly it's

Quote:
tendency to make the latter more suited to recuperating potentially radical opposition (should there be such a thing)to existing society, while the former would be more straightforwardly repressive.

I know, that's why i'm saying you shouldn't pretend it's the same as loyalism, which doesn't have this particular dangerous characteristic.

revol68 wrote:
In order to stop this recuperation it means understanding the grievances that fuel this particular form of nationalism, and seeking a means of addressing them in a manner that can allows development beyond a "nationalist perspective".

There is no absolute safe guard that can stop any struggle being recuperated by nationalism, that is the risk we always take, but it is no excuse to avoid the issues. That is what i was getting at when i said i supproted totally the people in the Battle of the Bogside, even if this struggle was to later be congealed into a republican historigraphy.

I'm not disagreeing with you about any of this.
I agree with you against the left-comm dogmatists. If anything, I'm saying don't end up getting sucked in by them to getting abstract and simplistic on the nationalist question, which you weren't doing before, at least on the posts I saw.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Sep 11 2006 20:29

Hi

Cardinal Tourettes wrote:
If anything, I'm saying don't end up getting sucked in by them to getting abstract and simplistic on the nationalist question, which you weren't doing before, at least on the posts I saw.

Oh no. They’ll accuse him of being ambiguous and inconsistent again now. Just when this was getting good too.

Love

LR

Cardinal Tourettes
Offline
Joined: 1-04-06
Sep 11 2006 22:11
revol68 wrote:

But in northern ireland they are pretty much the same, especially now. It isn't and never was like Palestine, and now the claims for "national liberation" are no longer fuelled by live "oppression" on the ground but rather by ongoing territorialism.

Well, the "pretty much" shows you know I'm right, and you might even admit it in a minute. ( Sorry, but I really refuse to use smilies.)

Certainly its not like Palestine, and I basically agree with the rest of that sentence as well.

We're not disagreeing very much, but the point I was making isn't just me being pedantic.