Being pro-independence

Now I have decided that the english are a bunch of twats. Well ok, only the ones who voted for Maggie and lived in Essex mainly.

PZS I wish we were all communists,. then provenance wouldn/t matter.

This is an interesting thread; I had in mind to start a thread about anarchism & nationalism/national liberation struggles, but there seems little point after this.

I've been an activists for both Scots and Welsh nationalism in the past, although I've had an extended sabbatical for about 18 months now, having become very disillusioned with the processes of mainstream electoral politics.

One point I would mention to those pouring cold water on the whole nationalism thing on this thread: you can't wish this away It may well be possible to dismiss Celtic nationalisms as a mere rearranging of the deckchairs on a capitalist Titanic, but national/regional identity and difference is very important and a profoundly emotional thing for many people.

Starting out from the standpoint that nations are irrelevant/a nineteenth century anachronism that's somehow survived into the 21st century/a childish and groundless 'thing' that should just, well, 'wither away' isn't going to help in a broader project of engaging such people. But most on this thread seem aware of that anyway, so 8)

dr xmas!!!!

uh-huh. steeplejack too, in my post U75 phase.

Fuck that was fast

I like to have a handle on what's happening in my back yard. It affects me and others worldwide (ref Iraq). Don't think there would have been Scottish soldiers there if we had our own soviets.

But those people are wrong! Being proud of your local area doesn't mean you have to get local people to tell you what to do. Either you associate yourself with others hierarchicaly, in a nationalist way, or non-hierarchicaly, in a revolutionary way, anything else is just delusion.

So how do you suggest that this alternative history is disseminated, and with what aim(s) in mind?

No, it is nonsense.

We are way more revolutionary than your books suggest.

How dare you english pig dogs, we have had enough of you SpeciAL bRanch English bastards, eg at the G8. I fucking saw you. So get lost, ok, or we will deal with you english bastards (special branch only, not normal english people of course). PalistiniAN flag, mNow I know you, so fuck off or else)

xx

Thaw, why don't you take a break from the boards for a bit like you said you would?

OK, going away next week, but I did see them at G8, all english SB. Not imagining it. In fact I recognised one of them and took his photo, bearing a mask and global jihad postre, with his mate with the large Palestinian Flag (also Special Branch). I am only telling you what I know to be fact.

What is your issue, and i will be glad to answer it?

Love

xx

Also, if they didn't vote for Maggie like they did IN FACT, then I wouldn'y have a problem. Twats.

:Lots of love

Revolutionary, let me know when you want to learn...

Was this written with a particular poster in mind, or just filling up the silence with some noise?

Hi

thaw does pills, but I still love her. I'm lonely over on "+ insults", you can slag thaw off there safely.

Love

Chris

Surely this debate would make more sense in the context of the island of Ireland? No disrespect to the thousands who suffered and struggled in Scotland, but it's economical and political development were not hindered to the same degree as Ireland's, particularly from the late 16th century onwards following the protestant ascendancy, but more by an incorporation of the kingdom into the new UK.

I'm not diminishing the appauling effects of the Highland clearances etc, simply the specific economic and political subjecation that Ireland faced compared to Scotland was far greater as Ireland was never allowed parity with the rest of the so-called UK.

Clearly for 800 years there has been imperial rule in Ireland - economically, socially and politically in most of the 32 counties of Ireland which still remains to a certain degree in the 26 county statelett and to a far greater degree in the 6 counties.

I fully agree that there can be no national liberation without the liberation of the working-class, but that was exactly James Connolly's position too. As anarchist communists, I see no contradiction here with supporting genuine national liberation movements from imperialist oppression so long as the end objective is NOT simply a different more localized bourgois state.

Go you cage!

I used to have a fixed thinking style like that.

Can I now refer to Jack and the Button...

Nothing to do with me comrade revol

xx

(still smarter than u)

kisses and be blessed revol, cos I like you really

I don't think you read what I said. The 26 county state economically speaking from 1921 onwards was indeed still suffering from the effects of British imperialism as industry had never been allowed to significantly develop outside of Belfast in the preceeding two centuries. I agree, to a certain extent, with your description of the latter-day post-industrial situation in the 6 counties and Scotland, but that wasn't my point or the topic under discussion.

After all, I thought the thread was about whether it is incompatible for anarchist communists to support national liberation movements.

As for Connolly, you can mock his heroic achivements in the class struggle and his effort to organize, together with Larkin the Irish working class and oversimplify all that and distill it down to just the few days of the 1916 Rising if you like. Though as Connolly himself famously said there was no chance of the Rising being a success at all, I doubt very much that he ever said or thought Ireland was ever in a 'proto-communist' situation. But that wasn't my point either.

I simply pointed out that he too beleived there can be no national liberation without the liberation of our class.

So just maybe it's you Revol, with respect, who should have a wee read and think too?

OK, so everyone now agrees that it's compatible for anarchists to support national liberation movements, right?

Hi

No self-respecting national liberation movement would want anarchists’ support anyway.

Love

Chris

I'm hoping that's sarcasm.

no

Really? What do you do then, go to Ireland in 1916-22 and tell them you're on the side of the Brits? Say the same in India during the Raj? And today visit the Occupied Territories and tell the Palestinians you can't support them because they're a national liberation movement?

You can support the Palestinians without supporting nationalism and the reactionary fucktards that dominate the Palestinian cause.

Hi

I support afraser religiously, even when he is wrong. I also admire revol68’s principled approach to the question. Me personally, I like to pick and choose individual components of movements which may be described as “national liberationist”, evaluate whether or not they are acting in my best interests and encourage or undermine them as appropriate. I am basically a fickle tart when it comes to quasi-socialist organisations. It really depends on my instinctive feel for the politics of the protagonists.

I’m completely agnostic about it. I was delighted when the IRA tried to off the Tories in Brighton, and embarrassed when they did bad things that back fired. I’m slightly hurt that some Irish/Scots/Welsh/Cornish comrades want to belong to a different country, where I live is quite shit really and the fact that we’re all joined up brings something good to my life, not to mention gives me a potentially economically self sufficient unit capable of furthering a revolutionary anarchist agenda.

Like Asperger’s, an organisation’s Nationalism is not absolute, but exists on a spectrum. It may be trite to say so, but the question is complicated not just by the aims, but also the means employed, which colours any appraisal of the politics of these organisations.

Any dogmatic, fixed, perspective on a particular nationalist organisation or movement will inevitably lead to an indefensible position as it changes with the times. I used to be a full on style IRA supporter in the style of Red Action (shows my age), against the advice of more experienced and principled comrades. Now the IRA has abandoned armed struggle, what am I meant to do? Curse them for their liberalism and insist they take up arms again?

Nationalism is at best a dead end and at worst reactionary, but that does not prevent us from having a principled appreciation of the progressive component of some national liberation struggles.

You’ll forgive me for reiterating the point I tried to make earlier. I’m far from convinced that the core of national liberation movements in, say, Ireland and Palestine, sincerely want left-Anarchist support. I expect our support undermines their agenda as much as anything. At best we represent a convenient thorn in the side of a common enemy, I wouldn’t be too passionate in my allegiance to their flags if I were you, you never know what reactionary claptrap you might be called on to defend.

Sorry for being so fluffy about it, but the most revered nationalists modify their positions with the tide of public opinion, so I’m bound to grant myself the same latitude.

Love

Chris

- an incredibly simplistic and naiive position to take in response to nationalist movements. Quite clearly, even at that time, people who weren't for the establishment of an Irish independent State (and its national capitalism) weren't necessarily supporting the British. This is pretty basic stuff, but we know fine well the passionate feeling, patriotism and nationalism of the people regarding the differences between States is a complete lie and delusion. It is a conflict that has little/no real meaning to the working people. Often you'll find the reasons people accept national independence are based in ignorance of their true position and turn out to be equally applicable to their new leaders.

In early 20th century Ireland

India at the time of the Raj

and present-day Palestine

there have been/are examples of movements that reject both imperialist rule and local capitalist rule but, nearly always, these are deliberately sidelined in place of this split between those who are both equally enemies of the working people. India truly is a brilliant example -has anyone read Lal Khan (ok maybe a Trotskyite) and the workers' organisation that happened and was thwarted by Gandhi and his cronies.

This has a somewhat pleasing affect on any Irish/Scots/Welsh/Cornish people who both dont tend to like the English very much but (if they've ever encountered you) are quite happy to piss you off. Milkie.

Fuck Nationalism. But, seriously, fuck this stupid "let the Brits stick together" BS.

Now would you say that Ireland and India at present are flowering grass-roots democratic societies? Did nationalism get them anywhere? no. Nationalism just replaces one set of bosses with another, and also helps to divide the working class. So that people are filled with irrational hatred for one another rather than co-operate against the common enemy. And anyway, Scotland has nothing in common with Ireland or India, we aren't oppressed by the English, but by our own ruling class. We weren't conquered by the English, but sold off by our own bosses, which just shows that they've been in charge all along. Most Scottish people have far more in common with the English than Irishmen or Indians. Same language, same protestant culture, same corrupt officialdom. Because the Irish civil war wasn't about class it opened the way for the next century of sectarianism. If it had been about class then protestants and catholics could have co-operated to get rid of the bosses, but they didn't. Though I don't know much about Ireland. But seriously, Scottish nationalism is just so wanky. Why do you never get anarchists arguing for National Liberation for England or France? Because it's a contradiction, you can't pretend to be in favour of socialism and then constrain it to one nationality. And they'd look ridiculous. Sure there's cultural differences between people, but why use them to found a whole system of oppression. Scottish people just have a big chip on their shoulder. But it's not the English's fault, it's cause the ruling class here are still utter bastards. Seriously, do you want to be ruled by Tommy Sheridan? And anyway, Scotland isn't a unified cultural unit, Gaelic speakers aren't going to benefit under an Edinburgh based state, and don't have much in common with Lowland folk either. So what's the point? Scottish nationalists are just suffering from a lack of cultural identity, they don't have anything Scottish about them, so they imagine a Scottish banana republic will help distinguish them from the hated English. But it's bollocks. Man Scottish people annoy me.

While I entirely agree, that as anarchsists, we should look to those movements that rejected nationalism as some form of localized replacement capitallism instead of the imposed imperialist capitalism instead of genuine national (or rather social liberation). However, I have to take exception with your analysis of the Irish struggle. At what time do you maintain those who resented the struggle for a republic (which I fully accept there were in the island of Ireland during 1916-1922, particularly in the north-east 4 counties following the protestant ascendancy of the late 16th-17th centuries) as not being pro-British state? On what basis do make such an assertion? Those who actively opposed the republic in those 4 counties formed the first militia under Carson called the UVF (today responsible for more killing together with British state forces than all republican groups put together, which incidentally is continuing as we speak as Catholics are being petrol bombed from their homes in Antrim just as in '69 - should we stand by at let that happen?) to ignite the sad and troubled history of the last 90 years on the island of Ireland. Others may have been somewhat politically indifferent during that period, but as the terror of the Tans escalated, you cannot seriosly say they that the majoriy popultaion was not pro-Dail Eirean, however imperfect that Dail may have been! Victory to the Irish working class, victory to the working class everywhere - Tiocfaidh ar la!

At best this contribution is barely literate, incoherent drivel.

1. Who's blaming the English for anything? Most Scots point the finger these days at the sclerotic performance of the parliament in Edinburgh.

2. 'Do you want to be ruled by Tommy Sheridan'? where the fuck is this coming from?

3. 'Scottish people just have a big chip on their shoulder.' just like all dem blacks are lazy, and all the Irish are stupid, huh?

4. 'Scottish nationalists are just suffering from a lack of cultural identity', err...sure...that's why they've politicised their identity in the first place..

5. 'Gaelic speakers aren't going to benefit under an Edinburgh based state' again this is laughable conjecture presented as cast iron fact.

Perhaps if you spent a bit less time with your nose buried in political theory from 100 years ago and a bit more time,er, getting out a bit more, you'd realise what a crock of shite you've written here.