Anti-imperialism, national liberation and Iraq - again
Apr 12 2006 15:14
Quote:
Admin - split from AWG discussion here:
Devrim wrote:
The 'internationalists on the other hand say that today all national liberation movements are anti-working class. Our position is very clear. If you want to attack it, please do, but try to do it on a political level, not just throw insults. Please explain to me what we should do here in Turkey. Should we support the Kurdish nationalist in the PKK? As Wayne says:
Quote:
The nationalism of the oppressed nations contains, however distorted, a positive aspect, namely opposition to imperialist oppression.
You should do whatever you can to oppose the imperialism of the Turks against the kurds or you are complicit in it and have blood on your hands. If you sit back and deliver abstract rhetoric about internationalism and how all nationalisms are terrible while 'your' state slaughters people on the basis of them having allegiance to a different nationalism you are beneath contempt.
Devrim wrote:
Or should we support the Turkish nationalists, who also claim that Turkey is oppressed by the imperialist powers?
The world does not consist of binary choices. That is merely an excuse for inaction.
Devrim wrote:
Or should we support both, and wear different hats depending on whom we are talking to?
You could simply take a pricipled stand against imperial slaughter and oppose it wherever you can have the most effect - for all sorts of good reasons that is almost always by opposing the imperialism of the state which claims you as part of the nationality from which it gains its legitimacy.
Devrim wrote:
I for one will continue to take an internationalist position, and continue to say that the working class has no interest in supporting this squalid war, in which over 36,000 people mostly workers, peasants, and conscript soldiers have lost their lives on behalf of competing nationalisms.
You will sit back and spout rhetoric while a militarily powerful force slaughters the weak in your name.
For Internationalism
Devrim
Apr 12 2006 13:04
#2
Revol, by 'internationalists' I meant those who defend internationalist positions. I would certainly include you among these. It is also a term that 'Lazy Riser' has been using to describe the left communists. O.k. maybe some of those insults were addressed to Peter's comments on the unions, and the CNT. If you feel I misquoted you I am sorry. I will try to address these issues before I go back to work.
Apr 12 2006 13:07
#3
gurrier wrote:
Devrim wrote:
The 'internationalists on the other hand say that today all national liberation movements are anti-working class. Our position is very clear. If you want to attack it, please do, but try to do it on a political level, not just throw insults. Please explain to me what we should do here in Turkey. Should we support the Kurdish nationalist in the PKK? As Wayne says:
Quote:
The nationalism of the oppressed nations contains, however distorted, a positive aspect, namely opposition to imperialist oppression.You should do whatever you can to oppose the imperialism of the Turks against the kurds or you are complicit in it and have blood on your hands. If you sit back and deliver abstract rhetoric about internationalism and how all nationalisms are terrible while 'your' state slaughters people on the basis of them having allegiance to a different nationalism you are beneath contempt.
Devrim wrote:
Or should we support the Turkish nationalists, who also claim that Turkey is oppressed by the imperialist powers?The world does not consist of binary choices. That is merely an excuse for inaction.
Devrim wrote:
Or should we support both, and wear different hats depending on whom we are talking to?You could simply take a pricipled stand against imperial slaughter and oppose it wherever you can have the most effect - for all sorts of good reasons that is almost always by opposing the imperialism of the state which claims you as part of the nationality from which it gains its legitimacy.
Devrim wrote:
I for one will continue to take an internationalist position, and continue to say that the working class has no interest in supporting this squalid war, in which over 36,000 people mostly workers, peasants, and conscript soldiers have lost their lives on behalf of competing nationalisms.You will sit back and spout rhetoric while a militarily powerful force slaughters the weak in your name.
For Internationalism
Devrim
gurrier, that post is fucking disgusting.
he has clearly stated he opposes Turkish nationalism and has even posted links to stories regarding the shooting of Kurdish demonstrators.
Of course it's very easy for you to sit and fucking bitch from Dublin.
Suppouse us ones in the north who refuse to support irish national liberation are complicit in the british states crimes?
Apr 12 2006 13:11
#4
gurrier wrote:
Devrim wrote:
The 'internationalists on the other hand say that today all national liberation movements are anti-working class. Our position is very clear. If you want to attack it, please do, but try to do it on a political level, not just throw insults. Please explain to me what we should do here in Turkey. Should we support the Kurdish nationalist in the PKK? As Wayne says:
Quote:
The nationalism of the oppressed nations contains, however distorted, a positive aspect, namely opposition to imperialist oppression.You should do whatever you can to oppose the imperialism of the Turks against the kurds or you are complicit in it and have blood on your hands. If you sit back and deliver abstract rhetoric about internationalism and how all nationalisms are terrible while 'your' state slaughters people on the basis of them having allegiance to a different nationalism you are beneath contempt.
Devrim wrote:
Or should we support the Turkish nationalists, who also claim that Turkey is oppressed by the imperialist powers?The world does not consist of binary choices. That is merely an excuse for inaction.
Devrim wrote:
Or should we support both, and wear different hats depending on whom we are talking to?You could simply take a pricipled stand against imperial slaughter and oppose it wherever you can have the most effect - for all sorts of good reasons that is almost always by opposing the imperialism of the state which claims you as part of the nationality from which it gains its legitimacy.
Devrim wrote:
I for one will continue to take an internationalist position, and continue to say that the working class has no interest in supporting this squalid war, in which over 36,000 people mostly workers, peasants, and conscript soldiers have lost their lives on behalf of competing nationalisms.You will sit back and spout rhetoric while a militarily powerful force slaughters the weak in your name.
For Internationalism
Devrim
Is this a pisstake?
Apr 12 2006 13:12
#5
apparently not.
Apr 12 2006 13:12
#6
revol68 wrote:
Suppouse us ones in the north who refuse to support irish national liberation are complicit in the british states crimes?
Can you read?
Apr 12 2006 13:14
#7
The internationalists are those who have defended the internationalist principle without compromise, even when it was 'against the stream'. Lenin and Luxemburg in 1914. The Italian communist left faced with the imperialist war in Spain 1936-39 and - along with remnants of the German left, a minority of anarchists, and some groups breaking with Trotskyism - the second imperialist world war, including the 'Resistance' fronts. Those who have consistently opposed national liberation struggles since then as moments in inter-imperialist wars.
The CNT - like social democracy during the first world war or Trotskyism during the second - betrayed internationalism by calling for workers in Spain to subordinate the class struggle to the anti-fascist front. Of course many sincerely revolutionary workers remained within it, some of them formed proletarian opposition groups like the Friends of Durruti, but as an organisation (and not just a few 'bad leaders') this betrayal meant the death of the CNT as an expression of the proletariat.
The AWG was a leftist organisation pure and simple. I recall going to one of their meetings in 1991 when they were defending the slogan 'Victory to Iraq'. Their entire manner of behaving and arguing was straightforward Trotskyism.
I am not well acqainted with NEFAC but my first experience with them on these boards was not too promising. There was a long 'debate' with this STI guy who was passionately arguing in favour of supporting the Iraqi resistance. Again, there was no difference at all between his arguments and those of Trotskyism. Devrim's post clearly shows that the best you can say about NEFAC is that it is extremely unclear about nationalism.
The key question is not whether a group calls itself anarchist or Leninist but whether it is proletarian or bourgeois (not forgetting that there will always been an indeterminate zone in between). The fundamental criterion for distinguishing the two camps is internationalism.
Apr 12 2006 13:17
#8
gurrier wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Suppouse us ones in the north who refuse to support irish national liberation are complicit in the british states crimes?Can you read?
no gurrier I can't. I learnt to write but somehow I missed the reading bit.
Sorry, I just want a straight answer, as my position on the north is the same as Devrims is on the Kurdish question.
Seriously, do you not think that as a left communist, Devrim is quite clearly opposed to Turkish nationalism?
Apr 12 2006 13:23
#9
gurrier wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Suppouse us ones in the north who refuse to support irish national liberation are complicit in the british states crimes?Can you read?
Yeah it's fair enough gurrier wasn't saying that, he said people who don't oppose the imperialism are complicit. However as you say it's obvious any communist would, so s/he's making a complete useless point, which would be entirely irrelevant to Devrim, filled with a lot of hyperbole. And I'm not really sure why 
Apr 12 2006 13:25
#10
revol68 wrote:
Seriously, do you not think that as a left communist, Devrim is quite clearly opposed to Turkish nationalism?
He attacked NEFAC for expressing opposition to imperialism. Like you, he seems to equate opposition to imperialism with support for nationalism. I think this is a pathetic position for somebody to take.
I would equate it with somebody in the UK doing nothing to oppose, for example, state collusion in death squads on the basis that it would be equivalent to supporting Irish nationalism. A position that I consider to be beneath contempt.
Apr 12 2006 13:28
#11
gurrier wrote:
I would equate it with somebody in the UK doing nothing to oppose, for example, state collusion in death squads on the basis that it would be equivalent to supporting Irish nationalism. A position that I consider to be beneath contempt.
So 99% of the British working class are 'beneath contempt'. Great. 
Apr 12 2006 13:29
#12
Jack wrote:
So 99% of the British working class are 'beneath contempt'. Great.
"on the basis that it would be equivalent to supporting Irish nationalism"
Another person who seems to have trouble reading.
Apr 12 2006 13:30
#13
gurrier wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Seriously, do you not think that as a left communist, Devrim is quite clearly opposed to Turkish nationalism?He attacked NEFAC for expressing opposition to imperialism. Like you, he seems to equate opposition to imperialism with support for nationalism. I think this is a pathetic position for somebody to take.
No, he quite clearly quoted opposition to imperialism, and said "This seems quite clear". Then he quoted a NEFAC member actually supporting nationalism, and criticised this.
Gurrier, I don't think you "doing nothing" or "doing all you can" rhetoric is very helpful to anyone. Other than ghetto activist cockwavers that is.
Apr 12 2006 13:31
#14
Because from what I understood of Wayne Price's article, NEFAC gives critical support to national liberation movements. Read the quotes, John:
Quote:
In fact, the only way the Iraqis, Palestinians, or others may be won to anarchist internationalism is if we support them fully, and if, if possible, anarchists struggle along with them, demonstrating in practice that libertarian socialism is the best program for ending imperialist domination.
Does that mean that we go up into the mountains, and fight alongside the PKK?
Or admittidly not direct from Wayne, but from Lucien Van der Walt, of the Zabalaza Anarcho-Communist Federation of South Africa:
Quote:
This requires active participation in national liberation struggles but political independence from the nationalists.
I think it is quite clear what the argument is about.
In solidarity,
Dev
Edit: Sorry, I misread who was full of hyperbole.
Apr 12 2006 13:35
#15
I thought Internationalists claimed ZACF as being one of the few anarcho groups who were part of the proletarian mileau?
Apr 12 2006 13:37
#16
So gurrier you do think my position is beneath contempt?
And please stop using the term "death squads" as symonous with loyalist paramilitaries. It's a term that is loaded with associations with hired goons in south america and implies and continuity of interest between loyalism and the british that doesn't exist.
P.S. Were republicans ever in "death squads", or are they members of "we gave adequate warning, tough shit" squads?
Apr 12 2006 13:44
#17
Devrim wrote:
Does that mean that we go up into the mountains, and fight alongside the PKK?
I would read both quotes to mean that anarchists would struggle against imperalism but with "political independence from the nationalists" engaged in such a struggle.
This just reads like common sense to me - after all the imperialists wouldn't have qualms about 'struggling' with the anarchists once they judge them a threat.
Arguably Devrim by distributing news of the latest massacre you have already entered into such a struggle with imperialism. Cetainly any one who takes part in one of the anti-Iraq war demos has.
Apr 12 2006 13:46
#18
nah it says "active participation in national liberation struggles".
Which is a fucking shocking comment!
Apr 12 2006 13:52
#19
revol68 wrote:
nah it says "active participation in national liberation struggles".
I think your being pedentic here - to my mind someone who marches against the Iraq war in London is an active participant in the struggle against imperialism in Iraq AKA the Iraqi national liberation struggle.
Apr 12 2006 13:54
#20
JoeBlack2 wrote:
revol68 wrote:
nah it says "active participation in national liberation struggles".I think your being pedentic here - to my mind someone who marches against the Iraq war in London is an active participant in the struggle against imperialism in Iraq AKA the Iraqi national liberation struggle.
Er, I don't think you can equate the two.
Apr 12 2006 13:55
#21
Yes Joe, I have been on demonstrations against the Iraq war. I also went on them a distrubuted leaflets with a specifically internationalist approach. I do oppose imperialism, but I don't think that that means lining up alongside national liberation movements. The actions of the Turkish state in the south east are horrific. I spend a lot of time arguing this. I also spend a lot of time arguing, mostly with leftists, that the solution isn't to back the Kurdish national movement. I think it is very easy to slip from an anti-imerialist position to a pro-national liberation position.
What does:
Quote:
support them fully
actually mean?
For anyone who can read Turkish here is the text of our leaflet for the anti-war demonstration about a month, and a half ago:
Quote:
ORTADOĞU’DA MEDENİYETLER ÇATIŞMASI ???Irak’ta savaşın üçüncü yılı...Ortadoğu’ya ”Demokrasi” getiren Amerikan askerleri ve onlara karşı “yurtlarını” savunan islamcı mücahitler... Bu hikayede iki uygarlık savaşıyor ve bu savaş İslam ile Batı uygarlıkları, ABD ile Irak halkı arasındaki bir savaş gibi sunuluyor... Biz de bu savaşın pasif izleyicileri konumuna düşürülüyor ve vicdanlarımız veya “ulusal çıkarlarımız” doğrultusunda anlamsız tercihler yapmak durumunda bırakılıyoruz; Ya İran’daki gibi islami bir kapitalist diktatörlük ya da amerikan emperyalizmi ile ittifak ve kime hizmet ettiği tartışmalı olan ulusal çıkarlar...
Sözde “ANTİ-EMPERYALİZM” ya da ANTİ-AMERİKANİZM
Sözde solun her durum ve koşulda ortaya attığı o çürümüş sloganı yine duyuyoruz: anti-amerikancılık! Bu slogan, işçi sınıfını, Iraktaki direnişi körlemesine bir şekilde ve içeriğini umursamaksızın desteklemeye çağırıyor. Bu tavır, sonuçları bakımından ise sadece sınıf işbirlikçiliğine ve egemenlerle uzlaşmaya varıyor, yani Türkiye’de İslamcı gericilikle ve Irak’ta burjuvazinin “yeşil” kanadıyla ittifak... Türkiye’deki işçiler için ise bu, en iyi ihtimalle ulusalcı veya liberal solun yürüttüğü anlamsız bir mücadelenin neferi olmak, en kötü ihtimalle de seksist, şoven ve barbarca bir islami diktatörlüğe teslim olmak anlamına geliyor. Sözde savaş karşıtı olan solcuların bu anti-amerikanizminin tek anlamının kötünün iyisini seçmek olduğunu biliyoruz. Onlara soracağımız tek soru ise midelerinin böylesi bir gericiliği kaldırıp kaldırmayacağı?
Savaşa Karşı Sınıf Savaşı!
İşçi sınıfının, karşısındaki bu savaşa tek cevabı, liberal solun iddia ettiği gibi “vicdanımızı dinlemek” ya da ulusalcı solun öne sürdüğü gibi “ulusal çıkarlarımız” doğrultusunda tavır almak değil! Kapımızdaki savaşı durdurmanın ve ona karşı mücadele etmenin tek yolu öncelikle kendi egemenlerimize, kendi ulusal burjuvazimize karşı savaşmaktır. Yoksa burjuvazinin istekleri doğrultusunda savaş için mobilize olmak ya da başka ulusların burjuvalarını “eleştirel veya konjonktürel” olarak desteklemek değil!
SAVAŞA KARŞI SINIF SAVAŞI!
EMPERYALİZMİ YIKMAYA KENDİ ULUSUNDAN BAŞLA!
AMERİKAN EMPERYALİZMİ = “İSLAMİ” KAPİTALİST DİKTATÖRLÜK!!!
Apr 12 2006 13:55
#22
JoeBlack2 wrote:
I think your being pedentic here - to my mind someone who marches against the Iraq war in London is an active participant in the struggle against imperialism in Iraq AKA the Iraqi national liberation struggle.
the goal of many of the imperialists is national liberation i.e. a strong national bourgoise state.
Apr 12 2006 13:56
#23
JoeBlack2 wrote:
revol68 wrote:
nah it says "active participation in national liberation struggles".I think your being pedentic here - to my mind someone who marches against the Iraq war in London is an active participant in the struggle against imperialism in Iraq AKA the Iraqi national liberation struggle.
bullshit joe. pure bullshit.
My opposition is to the occupation in Iraq is based on the fact that it is against the interests of the working class, it has fuck all to do with Iraqi national liberation. Infact one of the reason I oppose the occupation is because it strenghtens nationalism in Iraq.
Apr 12 2006 13:57
#24
You know what'd be good?
Another argument about National Liberation struggles.
Apr 12 2006 13:58
#25
revol68 wrote:
My opposition is to the occupation in Iraq is based on the fact that it is against the interests of the working class, it has fuck all to do with Iraqi national liberation. Infact one of the reason I oppose the occupation is because it strenghtens nationalism in Iraq.
I'm not talking of you motivation (and really all your doing above is explaining why you are politically independent from the Iraqi nationalists). I'm talking about the consequences of your action which are clearly to help Iraqi national liberation.
Apr 12 2006 13:58
#26
Jack wrote:
You know what'd be good?Another argument about National Liberation struggles.
where do i sign up 
Apr 12 2006 13:59
#27
John. wrote:
JoeBlack2 wrote:
revol68 wrote:
nah it says "active participation in national liberation struggles".I think your being pedentic here - to my mind someone who marches against the Iraq war in London is an active participant in the struggle against imperialism in Iraq AKA the Iraqi national liberation struggle.
Er, I don't think you can equate the two.
Why - in terms of consequences they are identical
Apr 12 2006 14:02
#28
when i go to do clinic defense, I stand next to bourgeois feminists. They're liberals. They're members of the democratic party. We want fundamentally different societies. Yet in that particular instance, to keep that clinic open, I stand next to them. I'm not a liberal. Thats not a "united front" compromise. I'd gladly shoot them in the next instance if it came up. But engaging in that struggle, in reality means in that particular instance i'm standing next to them. If you can't deal with contradictions like that, what are you to do?
Apr 12 2006 14:03
#29
Devrim wrote:
Yes Joe, I have been on demonstrations against the Iraq war. I also went on them a distrubuted leaflets with a specifically internationalist approach. I do oppose imperialism, but I don't think that that means lining up alongside national liberation movements. The actions of the Turkish state in the south east are horrific. I spend a lot of time arguing this. I also spend a lot of time arguing, mostly with leftists, that the solution isn't to back the Kurdish national movement. I think it is very easy to slip from an anti-imerialist position to a pro-national liberation position.
I guess what I'm arguing is that the distinction between the two does not mean a lot in terms of actions (that's the 'alongside' bit) but only has meaning in terms of why you take part (that is the 'political independance' part). Your actions in opposing imperialism mean that you are acting alongside the nationalists even if at the same time you are calling them all the names under the sun.
Apr 12 2006 14:05
#30
JoeBlack2 wrote:
I guess what I'm arguing is that the distinction between the two does not mean a lot in terms of actions (that's the 'alongside' bit) but only has meaning in terms of why you take part (that is the 'political independance' part). Your actions in opposing imperialism mean that you are acting alongside the nationalists even if at the same time you are calling them all the names under the sun.
only if its a case of 'with us or against us' surely. struggles aren't binary.
Leading intellectual? um, we're anarchists. The following people are key thinkers: Nicholas Pheabus, Mark Lasky, Flint Jones, and that guy from toronto whose name I always forget, as well as wayne.