APOC vs white people?

And I remembered that issue of NEA had a really bad article in it about that free contraception being "genocide" or something.

We do argue for a class-based approach and against for example race-based approaches. It's just that you Europeans don't seem to understand some of the fundamentals of class formation over here and seem to want to ridicule any attempt to deal with it.

In a situation of imperialist aggression towards a Third World country or ruling class (e.g. the blockade of Cuba, the Gulf War against Iraq), we do not raise slogans such as “Defend Castro” or “Victory to Iraq”. Instead, we raise the slogan “No War but the Class War” and call for solidarity with, and a victory to, the popular masses of those countries (e.g. “Solidarity with Cuba, not Castro”), as it is they who bear the brunt of hardship imposed by imperialism. We make this concrete by offering solidarity including material aid to independent working class and working peasant and anti -authoritarian organisations. We do not send aid to the local State as it can use this to repress mass resistance. Aid of any sort must go to the masses of workers and peasants and allow them to organise to defend and advance their own interests. We call on First World workers to oppose the interventions. Local defeats for imperialism are to be welcomed as they give confidence to working class struggles in the imperialist countries and as they encourage anti -imperialist struggles in other countries. However, any defeat of imperialism that does not have anarchist goals will not be able to remove imperialism from that country or region. We recognise that the local ruling classes are unable to challenge imperialism and that only an international working class revolution can actually defeat imperialism, capitalism and the State.

We defend movements for greater regional autonomy. We defend the right of ordinary people to choose to have an independent State and/or secede from an empire, and we support every independence struggle that expresses the will of the peasants and proletarians, even if we do not support the political currents that dominate that struggle. We demand the liberation of all colonies and sites of imperial oppression, and we oppose all imperialist interventions against secessionist movements. This reflects our general commitment to progressive struggles and to freedom and equality. We always stand in solidarity with the struggles of the working class and the poor, even if they fight under the banner of nationalism. We support all progressive struggles for their own aims and for the confidence that campaigning gives to people. However, only a victory of the toiling masses can deliver genuine freedom from imperialist domination.

As Anarchists, we recognise that in the course of an anti-colonial or anti-imperialist struggle that the nationalists are on the side of the progressive forces. They are not the real problem in this context, the situation of colonial / imperialist domination, capitalism and the State is the problem. Therefore we defend nationalists from attacks by colonialists and imperialists and we support progressive initiatives on the part of nationalist organisations. Nonetheless, we clearly have deep political differences with nationalist organisations. Although we are willing to fight alongside various nationalist currents who represent or advocate class alliances, we will not hide our politics, we will not enter into alliances that undermine our ability to function as an organisation. We will argue for class politics, direct action, anti-statism, anti-capitalism and the need for revolution. Our role as Anarchists is to take up the battle of ideas and we know that this is most effectively done in struggle. Thus, while we side against imperialism by defending nationalist organisations, our role is to win workers and peas ants away from these movements by exposing the limits of their politics and their class nature as the politics of the frustrated local elite. So although we defend nationalists against imperialism we do this on the basis of building a mass anarchist movement that will replace them. In place of “national” identity we promote class pride, class unity and class struggle.

In countries where nationalist movements do come to power our role is not to support them but rather to organise for a revolution that will place power in the hands of the working class and working peasantry. In the imperialist country concerned our role is to undermine the war effort and argue that the workers of such countries are the natural allies of the working classes of the colonial countries. The final defeat of imperialism requires an international working class and working peasant revolution in both the First World and the Third World.

ZACF wrote: “As Anarchists, we recognise that in the course of an anti-colonial or anti-imperialist struggle that the nationalists are on the side of the progressive forces. They are not the real problem in this context, the situation of colonial / imperialist domination, capitalism and the State is the problem.”

ZACF wrote: “We defend movements for greater regional autonomy. We defend the right of ordinary people to choose to have an independent State and/or secede from an empire, and we support every independence struggle that expresses the will of the peasants and proletarians, even if we do not support the political currents that dominate that struggle.”

wangwei wrote:

I've supported them up to this point, but I can't politically support any movement that supports nationalism in any form.

Why is avoiding groups that have any kind of support for any kind of nationalism, however qualified and theoretical, the highest priority for some people? It's an obsession.

ANywya from your idiotic post wangwei, it sounds like politics to you is some kind of ethical shopping.

MJ wrote:

We do argue for a class-based approach and against for example race-based approaches. It's just that you Europeans don't seem to understand some of the fundamentals of class formation over here and seem to want to ridicule any attempt to deal with it.

On another level, APOC identify a real problem - the segregation of the american left, and the mass disenfranchisement of politics rights experienced by the american non-white population. When the Atlanta CTC group published a piece on the New Orleans tragedy without mentioning racism, it really drove home the theoretical poverty of large sections of the presumed left with regards to the issues of racial segregation.

And yes, I gush all over the PLP because stalinist (pun to MJ) or not, they do not equivicate on the point of nationalism, and believe in a direct fight to communism. I find it quite paradoxical that anarchists will slam the PLP for being "Stalinist" and then support nationalism.

I can only hope that the ZACF learns from the mistakes of the past and sees past this fetish with nationalism that saturates the left.

Yes, NEFAC as an organization, does not support nationalism, hence my support for them, but many of their members do.

I don't see any documents from the FdCA that support nationalism.

A just society in only one nation is unthinkable. The economy, military strength and ideology of power can be destroyed providing there does not exist in the world any place where they can survive.

For this reason, our basic strategic programme does not allow for the existence of "socialism in one country", as Marxist-Leninists would have us accept. It does not, however, follow from this that the revolution must break out at the exact same time in every country of the world. It simply means that the period of transition will not come to an end until all the various forms of power have been abolished everywhere.

Accordingly, therefore, it must be part of anarchist communist strategy to develop the anarchist communist international and to work towards the development of supranational coordination between the mass organizations.

The aim of the anarchist communist movement is to eliminate cultural, ethnic and racial divisions at an international level. But this does not mean abolishing (by force or otherwise) "traditions" and the various types of culture. It means ensuring that they are not obstacles to the unity of the proletariat.

The problem is therefore a practical one and must be seen under two aspects: on the one hand, the material difficulties that arise and on the other hand, the political role that the organization must have.

The material difficulties derive first and foremost from the slow evolution from the national to the international. The objective is federalism, not of nations but of zones with different cultures and languages, and there is no doubt that the forces of reaction will seek to use these divisions in order to destroy the revolution.

It is important to maintain the cultural identity of a "people" and even to strengthen it so that social cohesion can develop and lead to the overcoming of national barriers.

If it begins in another country

In this case, the revolt of the proletariat oppressed by imperialism will provide a state of precarious economic equilibrium. The moment an exploited zone ceases to be exploited, the exploiting countries will have to reduce their internal consumption and increase the exploitation of the weaker classes. It is thus necessary to support in every way the struggle of oppressed countries and ensure that in our country it becomes impossible to impose a strategy of increased exploitation by defending tooth and nail the economic conditions of the working classes.

And you can't just put "nation-state" there, loads of nations don't have their own states, like England, for example.

Quote:

And you can't just put "nation-state" there, loads of nations don't have their own states, like England, for example.

So is English nationalism the desire for a politically independent England?

No it's not, and no you're not, because that definition - given in pretty much every dictionary - clearly means indepence for a nation, not for a class or an individual.