Being pro-independence

358 posts / 0 new
Last post
Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 11 2005 20:50

Well it made sense to me.

1.Do they? That's news to me I thought nobody cared about the parliament, but sorry that's just my observations in the real world.

2. From the observation that most Scottish Nationalists also claim to be socialists, at least in the central belt, and so would prefer Tommy Sheridan to Alex Salmond. I could say Salmond, if you prefer?

3. No, most Scottish people do have a big chip on their shoulder. Or at least all Scottish Nationalists have a big chip on their shoulder.

4. Yep, if they had a cultural identity then they wouldn't have to politicise it into the dead end of Nationalism. Not all the aspects of Scottish identity go together, if you had something to be proud about instead of just Alex Salmond, then you wouldn't vote for him. Culture isn't just politics.

5. No, conjecture based on historical precedent. The Scottish ruling classes are as opposed to Gaelic as the English ruling class. (except for the Queen) You only have to look at the Gaelic bill recently passed in the Parliament. Total pish, no provision for anything except the recommendation that local councils provide a Gaelic policy. They're going to let it die by neglect. And Highland councillors have been voting against providing Gaelic road signs in areas such as Caithness and Sutherland, usually with the pretext that Gaelic was never spoken there. Which is crap. Perhaps these councillors are members of the ruling class too?

Oh me sorry, me poor Scottish person, me not understand why Nationalism make me big strong person, with big strong leaders and big strong kleptocracy, me go live underground and cry.

Cage11
Offline
Joined: 14-06-05
Aug 11 2005 21:47

Volin, in his obviously supreme understanding and knowledge says

"firstly your analysis of the north leaves something to be desired, equating loyalist sectarian attacks in the present with those in 69 is a blatant piece of propaganda. Yes there are continued sectarian attacks but they are hardly part of a "state policy" and are not against a backdrop of Civil rights marches being beaten off the street. The hegemonic role of loyalism and the threat of violence to suppress the nationalist population is resigned to the dustbin of history and in no small measure to do with British direct rule.

oh aye and the UVF was set up in relation to home rule you stupid fuck wit not the "republic". And as it happened there was next to no public support for republicanism in the south prior to the Brits executing the 1916 uprising prisoners."

First - Try telling the woman who has lived in her home for 50 years in Antrim and now has to leave her home this very week becasue of the petrol bomb attacks and all the so-called reformed PSNI (RUC) can offer is fire blankets that its not part of a secterian six county state administration there - You Fuck Wit! (Your phrase) If you have to resort to that sort of arrogant shite then I'm happy to oblige, typical cunts like you are the very obtacles to true class unity you stupit cunt! I clearly didn't say that the UVF was a response to a republic but that's how they saw it at the time, despite the limitation of the 3 Home Rule Bill's non of which where any threat to protestant hegomony. And, I think you need to do a bit more research my friend rather than churn out that tired old hackneyed British state repose that the Irish working class were not for the struggle untill the executions took place after Easter 1916, because that's nonsense - you twat!

Second - As I said, I clearly indicated where we agree, that our priority is to unite both Prod and Catholic working class rather than rely on bourgois nationalism. So long as arrogant wankers (with clearly an Anglo reading of events) like you keep out of it, we might do ok. Nobhead!

Cage11
Offline
Joined: 14-06-05
Aug 11 2005 22:05
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
As I said I clearly indicated where we agree, that our priority is to unite both Prod and Catholic working class rather than rely on bourgois nationalism. So long as arrogant wankers (with clearly an Anglo reading of events) like you keep out of it, we might do ok. Nobhead!

Oh how im pissing myself! Of course your right, pricks like me should stay out of it. I mean what would i fucking know, I mean my parents are only catholic and prostestant, i grew up catholic in a loyalist town and have mates from both nationalist and unionist backgrounds. roll eyes

Seriously i love your moralising from the safety of Liverpool, why don't you tell the people in Ballymena that are under threat from loyalist attack that your boldly fighting loyalism on the internet with republican rhetoric, im sure they wouldn't tell you to fuck off. Infact having been put out of my house by loyalist paramilitaries I can only say tjhat I would ahve been heartened to know that some lil gobshite on Merseyside was using it to bolster a piss poor justification of Irish Republicanism.

roll eyes

Good for you. I am "safe" in Liverpool or Glasgow as you say - I am too. Why is that? What exactly is you point? Is it really that we should be working to engage working class people from all communities or is it simply that you can't shake off your true colours as a religious secterian bigotry??? That's how some of you posts read as far as Ireland are concerned. I'm sure that's not what what you really are, but who knows??

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Aug 12 2005 15:33

Not read the latest on this thread. Just wanted to point out that Robert the Bruce was a Norman.

That is all black bloc

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 13 2005 10:32
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:
Well it made sense to me.

1.Do they? That's news to me I thought nobody cared about the parliament, but sorry that's just my observations in the real world.

2. From the observation that most Scottish Nationalists also claim to be socialists, at least in the central belt, and so would prefer Tommy Sheridan to Alex Salmond. I could say Salmond, if you prefer?

3. No, most Scottish people do have a big chip on their shoulder. Or at least all Scottish Nationalists have a big chip on their shoulder.

4. Yep, if they had a cultural identity then they wouldn't have to politicise it into the dead end of Nationalism. Not all the aspects of Scottish identity go together, if you had something to be proud about instead of just Alex Salmond, then you wouldn't vote for him. Culture isn't just politics.

5. No, conjecture based on historical precedent. The Scottish ruling classes are as opposed to Gaelic as the English ruling class. (except for the Queen) You only have to look at the Gaelic bill recently passed in the Parliament. Total pish, no provision for anything except the recommendation that local councils provide a Gaelic policy. They're going to let it die by neglect. And Highland councillors have been voting against providing Gaelic road signs in areas such as Caithness and Sutherland, usually with the pretext that Gaelic was never spoken there. Which is crap. Perhaps these councillors are members of the ruling class too?

Oh me sorry, me poor Scottish person, me not understand why Nationalism make me big strong person, with big strong leaders and big strong kleptocracy, me go live underground and cry.

1. far fewer people are inclined to blame 'the English' for Scotland's political ills than would have been the case 20 years ago- simply because with scotland having its own parliament, such a prejudice is more pbviously an absurdity than previously was the case.

2. do you have statistics to back this sweeping generalisation up, or is it made on the basis of separate conversations wioth two activists? Plus, if Scotland becomes independent, it's far from guaranteed that a Nationalist politician will be the first prime minister/president/chairman of the praesidium/whatever.

3. really? fascinating. No doubt you'll be able to back this inane shite up with some concrete examples, too. roll eyes

4. This point doesn't follow at all either.

5. Oddly enough I don't have a brief to defend NuLabour's pisspoor policy on Gaelic. To extrapolate Labour'slanguage policy onto every oparty- including the SNP- is ludicrous. It's as logically consistent as blaming the SNP for introducing PFI in the 1990s. No doubt there are shortcomings/flaws with the SNPs Gaelic policy, too, but I'd wager it's a damn sight better than the status quo.

Let's be clear- I don;t mind people ripping the SNP or indeed nationalism to shreds- but I'd rather they did it on the basis of reason and fact rather than the right wing Littlejohn-esque tabloidese you produced two posts above.

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 13 2005 11:23

1. Good, then there's no point having Scottish nationalism then is there, if it's the Scottish ruling classes fault we're in the state we're in.

2. So if they aren't socialists, then why support them?

3. In essence, Scottish Nationalism is reactionary, and reactionaries all have a chip on their shoulder. Are you suggesting that Scotto-fetishists are well-adjusted?

4 No, it does

5 Maybe I'll concede on this point, though I doubt the SNP will be any better in practice. The Lowland ruling classes have always been against Gaelic, and being Nationalists won't make any difference.

Me sorry, me poor Scottish anarchist, me lost in world of my own, me not think Scottish chauvinism good thing, me dislike stupid people, me all alone, me cry again.

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 13 2005 11:56
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:
1. Good, then there's no point having Scottish nationalism then is there, if it's the Scottish ruling classes fault we're in the state we're in.

2. So if they aren't socialists, then why support them?

3. In essence, Scottish Nationalism is reactionary, and reactionaries all have a chip on their shoulder. Are you suggesting that Scotto-fetishists are well-adjusted?

4 No, it does

5 Maybe I'll concede on this point, though I doubt the SNP will be any better in practice. The Lowland ruling classes have always been against Gaelic, and being Nationalists won't make any difference.

6. Me sorry, me poor Scottish anarchist, me lost in world of my own, me not think Scottish chauvinism good thing, me dislike stupid people, me all alone, me cry again.

1. You'll have to explain that one to me.

2. Is one under an obligation to support socialists and socialists only? Don't you have pretensions to being an 'anarchist'?

3. That's yet another gross simplification, something of a speciality of yours. In fact Scottish nationalism historically and currently is not a 'reactionary' phenomena. there may be a reactionary fringe, but it doesn't define a movement which is now broader based (with Socialists and Greens boith pro-indepndence these days) than ever.

4. If you can't see what's in fron of you then there's little point in me explaining.

5. Wtf? Your position: 'I'm right, don't confuse me with the facts'

6. is this babble meant to be funny? confused

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 13 2005 15:02

1. I would have thought it was obvious. If it's our ruling classes that are at fault, then surely we don't want to strengthen their position by giving them independence. Get rid of them and we're in a better position.

2. No, the question is, why are you a Nationalist? If you're an Anarchist, then you're more likely to be a Socialist as well, although admittedly not in support of any of the Scottish quasi/socialist parties, but if not, then what do you hope for out of Scottish independence? A neo-liberal kleptocracy?

3 No, it is.

4. Good

5. Basic Scottish History mate, First year at uni level.

6. Yeah

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 14 2005 09:17
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:
1. I would have thought it was obvious. If it's our ruling classes that are at fault, then surely we don't want to strengthen their position by giving them independence. Get rid of them and we're in a better position.

2. No, the question is, why are you a Nationalist? If you're an Anarchist, then you're more likely to be a Socialist as well, although admittedly not in support of any of the Scottish quasi/socialist parties, but if not, then what do you hope for out of Scottish independence? A neo-liberal kleptocracy?

3 No, it is.

4. Good

5. Basic Scottish History mate, First year at uni level.

6. Yeah

1. How does giving our 'ruling classes' indepndepnce 'strenghten their position?

You seem to be suggesting that the iron laws of history dictate that indepndence will mean a mini Whitehall being built in Edinburgh, and all power concentrated there.

In fact all policies of the pro-independence parties suggest further devolution away from the centre and the priniple of subsidiarity to be applied wherever possible. A nation is a community of diverse and varied communities; the sort of Scotland I;d want to see is one where those diverse communities hold as much power as poss.

2. 'neo-liberal kleptocracy' may be your favourite phrase of the moment, but what does it actually mean?

3& 4 I'm blown away by the cogent and persuasive force of your arguments roll eyes

5. No it isn't- the picture is much more complex than that as you well know. Nice attempt at patronising me though.

6. Don't give up your day,er, job then....

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 14 2005 19:45

1. Hmm, because it will, don't you pay attention to the world around you? We're talking realpolitik here, they won't give up their power just because they're Scottish. And if they say they will, you should be really, really sceptical, you'll be saying we should believe everything politicians say next.

2. Well, governments imposing privatisation and liberalisation on economies so that their cronies in big corporations can benefit. Profit before people. Neo-liberals, i.e. the government, taking money from social services in an organised fashion, i.e. stealing money from poorer people, i.e. kleptocracy.

3&4 Good

5 A tad ironic, considering you condescend to me with every post grin Show me one Lowland policy that benefitted Gaelic over the last 1000 years.

6. Fine, I won't grin

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 14 2005 20:33
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:
1. Hmm, because it will, don't you pay attention to the world around you? We're talking realpolitik here, they won't give up their power just because they're Scottish. And if they say they will, you should be really, really sceptical, you'll be saying we should believe everything politicians say next.

2. Well, governments imposing privatisation and liberalisation on economies so that their cronies in big corporations can benefit. Profit before people. Neo-liberals, i.e. the government, taking money from social services in an organised fashion, i.e. stealing money from poorer people, i.e. kleptocracy.

3&4 Good

5 A tad ironic, considering you condescend to me with every post grin Show me one Lowland policy that benefitted Gaelic over the last 1000 years.

6. Fine, I won't grin

1. Well, I prefer a bit of belief in the possibility that things may get better at some point. It seems to me a little more bearable than the default setting of world weary cynicism.

2. Are all governments 'neo-liberals'? You speak as though all of this is inevitable and unavoidable...we're fucked either way. I'm not buying it, sorry.

3&4.

5. How about the Language Act of the 60s that reversed centuries of state sponsored repression of Gaelic, for starters? I'm not sure why you're so fucking antagonistic towards me on this, as I;ve been involved in many minority language campaigns. You don't need to convince me that The Repression Of Gaelic Is A Bad Thing.[/img]

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 14 2005 21:02

1,2,3 & 4

5 So you admit there has been state repression of Gaelic, that's nice,

How about admitting that Scottish Nationalism has nothing to do with revolutionary politics and is instead a total waste of time?

Volin's picture
Volin
Offline
Joined: 24-01-05
Aug 14 2005 21:07
Quote:
How about the Language Act of the 60s that reversed centuries of state sponsored repression of Gaelic, for starters?

That was nice of them, seeing as the language was already on its knees by that point. No, I think you'll find even overt discrimination against Gaelic continued beyond the 60s be it in the form of unofficial preference of English in the classroom to rejecting people being registered and using a non-English name. It happened, there's still quite a few nasty incidences of the English tongue sidelining the native language, but by and large you dont need to attack it because basic indifference and the downward spiral of communities, culture and identity can destroy it anyway.

Why "minority" languages such as Gaelic are discriminated against in the first place is quite interesting, it reflects a basic centralisation and a mass-controlled society where diversity and rebellion are crushed. A resurgence of many of the things we have just about lost (and I'm personally commited to it) could only about through the equal resoration and empowerment of human communities from the ground up. Legislation can do little without the express wishes of the people, and in anycase it's just not happening. I was there in Parliament when they discussed the Gaelic Bill and I laughed my arse off listening to all those pathetic displays of politicians trying to speak it. But seriously, actually listening to what they proposed and how so bloody ecstatically optimistic all the Gaelic organisations were (and for what?...) made me a tad depressed.

BTW, What d'you hope national independence would realistically achieve for us? Are you an anarchist?

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 14 2005 21:11
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:
1,2,3 & 4

5 So you admit there has been state repression of Gaelic, that's nice,

How about admitting that Scottish Nationalism has nothing to do with revolutionary politics and is instead a total waste of time?

er, if you can produce the quote where i said that nationalism has everything to do with revolutionary politics, I'll happily withdraw it.

I would ask you to explain why you think it's a total waste of time, but I imagine your answer will once again be founded upon the phrases 'neo-liberal kleptocracy' and 'the Scottish ruling classes', so I won't bother.

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 14 2005 21:13
Volin wrote:
Quote:
How about the Language Act of the 60s that reversed centuries of state sponsored repression of Gaelic, for starters?

That was nice of them, seeing as the language was already on its knees by that point. No, I think you'll find even overt discrimination against Gaelic continued beyond the 60s be it in the form of unofficial preference of English in the classroom to rejecting people being registered and using a non-English name. It happened, there's still quite a few nasty incidences of the English tongue sidelining the native language, but by and large you dont need to attack it because basic indifference and the downward spiral of communities, culture and identity can destroy it anyway.

Why "minority" languages such as Gaelic are discriminated against in the first place is quite interesting, it reflects a basic centralisation and a mass-controlled society where diversity and rebellion are crushed. A resurgence of many of the things we have just about lost (and I'm personally commited to it) could only about through the equal resoration and empowerment of human communities from the ground up. Legislation can do little without the express wishes of the people, and in anycase it's just not happening. I was there in Parliament when they discussed the Gaelic Bill and I laughed my arse off listening to all those pathetic displays of politicians trying to speak it. But seriously, actually listening to what they proposed and how so bloody ecstatically optimistic all the Gaelic organisations were (and for what?...) made me a tad depressed.

BTW, What d'you hope national independence would realistically achieve for us? Are you an anarchist?

I agree with your post.

No, I'm not an anarchist.

I'll come back to the 'what will it (independence) achieve' tomorrow. Right now, I'm off to bed.

Volin's picture
Volin
Offline
Joined: 24-01-05
Aug 14 2005 21:14
Quote:
if you can produce the quote where i said that nationalism has everything to do with revolutionary politics, I'll happily withdraw it

Nothing to do with revolutionary politics...

...then what's the fucking point?!

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 14 2005 21:16

I'd turn that last question on its head, and ask:

what's the point of a revolutionary politics based on a century-old group of theories? Anarchist' achievements' have been rather thin on the ground.

There's nothing worse than political theory without political practice in my book.

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 14 2005 21:30

Just thought I'd give you a run down on Nationalism v Anarchism as something to wake up to.

1. Nationalism divides the working class, and henceforth is reactionary. Nationalism operates at the behest of the ruling class. It is used everywhere to turn worker against worker, and thereby give the ruling class the ability to dominate and destroy working class resistance. Just look at the First World War, the working class was in much better shape organisationally, they could have stopped the war by denying their respective governments war credits and because of Nationalism, the war went ahead.

2. Nationalism requires a state apparatus, and is based on arbitrary divisions between people.

3. Anarchism good, Nationalism bad

Volin's picture
Volin
Offline
Joined: 24-01-05
Aug 14 2005 21:50
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:
what's the point of a revolutionary politics based on a century-old group of theories? Anarchist' achievements' have been rather thin on the ground.

Hmm, this is going slightly off the point and I'd rather see you try to defend nationalism first but as an aside;

*Anarchism is not based on theories;

or century-old theories.

Though much of our ideas were first or most famously consolidated in the 19th century at the time of the formation of the proletariat as a grouping and one consciously antagonistic to the bourgeoisie.

*Our "achievements", in my view, have been the most inspiring instances in human history bringing us the closest we've ever come to living without illegitimate authority and with equality and freedom. I'd agree ofcourse, we haven't had it easy, and at every turn we're put down by our enemies or our "comrades". The fact that we aren't strong is not a reflection on the strength of what we fight for.

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 15 2005 08:59
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:
Just thought I'd give you a run down on Nationalism v Anarchism as something to wake up to.

1. Nationalism divides the working class, and henceforth is reactionary. Nationalism operates at the behest of the ruling class. It is used everywhere to turn worker against worker, and thereby give the ruling class the ability to dominate and destroy working class resistance. Just look at the First World War, the working class was in much better shape organisationally, they could have stopped the war by denying their respective governments war credits and because of Nationalism, the war went ahead.

2. Nationalism requires a state apparatus, and is based on arbitrary divisions between people.

3. Anarchism good, Nationalism bad

1. If you insist on seeing everything in terms of socio-economic class, then in some small way you're right. The problem I have with that- as your analysis of the outbreak of WW1 shows- is you assume that individual class members had no individual agency. They were all held down by some terrible force called 'nationalism' which they were powerless to resist and which herded them, helpless, into the trenches of the Somme and Gallipoli. It;s also a pretty blunt use of the term ';nationalism' as though it;s some kind of monolithic malign force- as though the social democrats of the SNP are just the same as the extreme blut und boden racialists of the NSDAP.

In your discussion, class functions as a determinist view of the individual which I don't share. I'm far from convinced of the merits of 'class analysis' to a political outlook, either.

2. Isn't class analysis arbitary too? Working class good, everyone else bad? Show me a totalising political system (any -ism) which isn't based on arbitary divisions, simplifications and generalisations so that its core message can be better communicated. If you regard national background as an arbitary division then class must be admitted to be the same.

Incidentally, I'm not sure that Anarchism won;t require some kind of state apparatus to sustain it too- although obviously of a different degree to other systems. Do you regard all 'States' as automatically bad and to be opposed?

3. That's a nice soundbite. Unfortunately this isn't Animal Farm.

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 15 2005 09:01
Volin wrote:
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:
what's the point of a revolutionary politics based on a century-old group of theories? Anarchist' achievements' have been rather thin on the ground.

Hmm, this is going slightly off the point and I'd rather see you try to defend nationalism first but as an aside;

*Anarchism is not based on theories;

or century-old theories.

Though much of our ideas were first or most famously consolidated in the 19th century at the time of the formation of the proletariat as a grouping and one consciously antagonistic to the bourgeoisie.

*Our "achievements", in my view, have been the most inspiring instances in human history bringing us the closest we've ever come to living without illegitimate authority and with equality and freedom. I'd agree ofcourse, we haven't had it easy, and at every turn we're put down by our enemies or our "comrades". The fact that we aren't strong is not a reflection on the strength of what we fight for.

Okay, I should have used the word 'ideas' instead of theories. Still....

What were these 'acheivements', inspiring or otherwise? Outwith a brief 18 months during the Spanish Civil War, and Makhno, I'm struggling to think of any.

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 15 2005 09:16

OK....

...rude that I should continue to attack your ideas when I haven't put forward my own for scrutiny.

For the sake of argument, lets say Scotland were to become independent tomorrow. What would be the benefits from my POV? (not in any order)

1. The break up and final dissolution of the C19th imperial power complex that is the UK.

2. practically- the end of Trident and Scotland becoming nuclear-free

3. practically- the development of a humane asylum policy based on the needs of the seeker and not the fears of the right wing press

4. leaving Scotland free to choose foreign alliances on the basis of consent of the people. I'd like to be in what seems to be a rapidly evolving EU, but many others don't and would prefer us to become like Norway, Iceland & the Faroes instead. Practically- Leaving Nato

5. In my view (and in the view of many democartic nationalists) Scotland as a nation is not one monolithic entity. It's a community of diverse communities- based on differing geographical, cultural, religious backgrounds. On the matter of geography, I'd like to see governemntal decisions taken at as local a level as possible- subsidiarity. Recognising that a policy good for Glasgow might be bad for Shetland, I'd like to continually develove as much power as possible away from the centre and back towards the people. I don't want Scotland to be independent for its own sake or out of some hatred for 'the English'- i want it so that communities are able to make their own choices as freely as poss, un meanced by a centralising, ureaucratic, interventionist state.

The last time I hinted at this someone sneered about 'realpolitik' as though it was some cast iron, inevitable occurrence. It's not (unless you belive that it is, and sit on your arse and do nothing other than moan about it from a position of oh-so-superior 'revolutionary' insight)

I can't be arsed to go into it further now but there's a few important and radical changes that an independent governemnt in Scotland could achieve. practical, realisbale changes that would improve people's lives for the better. Which is what politics is supposed to be about, but isn't.

A final thought. It's entirely up to you whether you oppose or support Scottish nationalism but, if you're going to oppose it, please at least try and engage with it factually. I'm amazed that much of the opposition to Scot Nats on this thread has been of the 'oh they all hate the English and have a chip on their shoulder and are reactionaries and are whisky drinking pre-1745 nostalgiacs'. An inane caricature straight from the leader writer of Daily Mail editorials I'm afraid. Opposing a caricature might make you feel better about your own political creed but does very little to advance it in terms of understanding or popular support.

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 15 2005 12:28
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:

1. If you insist on seeing everything in terms of socio-economic class, then in some small way you're right. The problem I have with that- as your analysis of the outbreak of WW1 shows- is you assume that individual class members had no individual agency. They were all held down by some terrible force called 'nationalism' which they were powerless to resist and which herded them, helpless, into the trenches of the Somme and Gallipoli. It;s also a pretty blunt use of the term ';nationalism' as though it;s some kind of monolithic malign force- as though the social democrats of the SNP are just the same as the extreme blut und boden racialists of the NSDAP.

In your discussion, class functions as a determinist view of the individual which I don't share. I'm far from convinced of the merits of 'class analysis' to a political outlook, either.

2. Isn't class analysis arbitary too? Working class good, everyone else bad? Show me a totalising political system (any -ism) which isn't based on arbitary divisions, simplifications and generalisations so that its core message can be better communicated. If you regard national background as an arbitary division then class must be admitted to be the same.

Incidentally, I'm not sure that Anarchism won;t require some kind of state apparatus to sustain it too- although obviously of a different degree to other systems. Do you regard all 'States' as automatically bad and to be opposed?

3. That's a nice soundbite. Unfortunately this isn't Animal Farm.

1. No they weren't held down by Nationalism as a terrible force, but by the actions of their leaders in the Social Democratic party in Germany, which was a mass party and could have stopped the war by refusing war credits but chose not to. It chose to support the war because it wanted to save its place in the State hierarchy, i.e Nationalism. So millions of people died, which could have been prevented. Sure, the individual workers could have rebelled, but the historical situation was they had put all their faith in a Socialist party, which turned Nationalist, and fucked them over. Also, the SNP aren't Social Democrats anymore, did you not hear Alex Salmond's announcement about cutting corporation tax in an independent Scotland?

2. Class is empirical, based on the fact that what you do determines your place in the social hierarchy, and shapes your consciousness. Members of the same class have a commonality of interest which members of the same nation do not share. The Duke of Buccleuch does not have the same interest as me, even though we're both Scottish. If I were to make common cause with the Duke of Buccleuch, I'd have to kick all the workers on his estate in the teeth. Without the working classes, society collapses, as they're the ones who actually do the work. Anarchism does not rely on simplifications, because it allows members of anarchist organisations to retain freedom of conscience on important matters, rather than kowtowing to a rigid ideology. Anarchists come together to co-operate on shared principles, i.e. a commonality of interest, rather than get dragooned into an organisation whose ideals they do not share. (or at least this would be true if there were any working class mass anarchist organisations out there in Britain any more.) National background is based on a line drawn on a map, class divisions are based on what people do in their daily lives. Anarchism won't require a State apparatus, and yes, all states are bad, cause someone always get's fucked over, ususally the workers.

3.Yes it is

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 15 2005 12:42
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:
OK....

...rude that I should continue to attack your ideas when I haven't put forward my own for scrutiny.

For the sake of argument, lets say Scotland were to become independent tomorrow. What would be the benefits from my POV? (not in any order)

1. The break up and final dissolution of the C19th imperial power complex that is the UK.

2. practically- the end of Trident and Scotland becoming nuclear-free

3. practically- the development of a humane asylum policy based on the needs of the seeker and not the fears of the right wing press

but couldn't this all be achieved in the UK? Why bother breaking it up?

Quote:
4. leaving Scotland free to choose foreign alliances on the basis of consent of the people. I'd like to be in what seems to be a rapidly evolving EU, but many others don't and would prefer us to become like Norway, Iceland & the Faroes instead. Practically- Leaving Nato

The Eu is neo-liberal, the new constitution is an attack on workers rights, and governments of the whole continent are introducing restrictive asylum policies, so it's not just the right-wing press to blame, it's a concerted movement throughout Europe

Quote:
5. In my view (and in the view of many democartic nationalists) Scotland as a nation is not one monolithic entity. It's a community of diverse communities- based on differing geographical, cultural, religious backgrounds. On the matter of geography, I'd like to see governemntal decisions taken at as local a level as possible- subsidiarity. Recognising that a policy good for Glasgow might be bad for Shetland, I'd like to continually develove as much power as possible away from the centre and back towards the people. I don't want Scotland to be independent for its own sake or out of some hatred for 'the English'- i want it so that communities are able to make their own choices as freely as poss, un meanced by a centralising, ureaucratic, interventionist state.

But who will be making those decisions? Bureaucrats or the actual people, and again, why not expand it to the whole UK?

Quote:
The last time I hinted at this someone sneered about 'realpolitik' as though it was some cast iron, inevitable occurrence. It's not (unless you belive that it is, and sit on your arse and do nothing other than moan about it from a position of oh-so-superior 'revolutionary' insight)

Ignore realpolitik all you want, just don't expect it to disappear.

Quote:

Which is what politics is supposed to be about, but isn't.

and never shall be.

Quote:
Scot Nats on this thread all hate the English and have a chip on their shoulder and are reactionaries and are whisky drinking pre-1745 nostalgiacs.

hooray

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 15 2005 13:17
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:

1. No they weren't held down by Nationalism as a terrible force, but by the actions of their leaders in the Social Democratic party in Germany, which was a mass party and could have stopped the war by refusing war credits but chose not to. It chose to support the war because it wanted to save its place in the State hierarchy, i.e Nationalism. So millions of people died, which could have been prevented. Sure, the individual workers could have rebelled, but the historical situation was they had put all their faith in a Socialist party, which turned Nationalist, and fucked them over. Also, the SNP aren't Social Democrats anymore, did you not hear Alex Salmond's announcement about cutting corporation tax in an independent Scotland?

2. Class is empirical, based on the fact that what you do determines your place in the social hierarchy, and shapes your consciousness. Members of the same class have a commonality of interest which members of the same nation do not share. The Duke of Buccleuch does not have the same interest as me, even though we're both Scottish. If I were to make common cause with the Duke of Buccleuch, I'd have to kick all the workers on his estate in the teeth. Without the working classes, society collapses, as they're the ones who actually do the work. Anarchism does not rely on simplifications, because it allows members of anarchist organisations to retain freedom of conscience on important matters, rather than kowtowing to a rigid ideology. Anarchists come together to co-operate on shared principles, i.e. a commonality of interest, rather than get dragooned into an organisation whose ideals they do not share. (or at least this would be true if there were any working class mass anarchist organisations out there in Britain any more.) National background is based on a line drawn on a map, class divisions are based on what people do in their daily lives. Anarchism won't require a State apparatus, and yes, all states are bad, cause someone always get's fucked over, ususally the workers.

3.Yes it is

1. blah blah...the point is this, if you see the nationalism of the SNP as one and the same as the imperial nationalism of the kings, queens, kaisers and tsars of 1914, then you have a problem.

Yes, I'm aware of the SNPs pronouncements re: corporation tax and further road building. No, I don't agree with them. Just as I'm sure there have been 'anarchist' pronouncements/statements/actions in the past which you haven't agreed with either. I hope....

2. I don;t agree for a moment that social class is 'empirical'. I note also that whilst you spend time outlining a firley well thought out view of anarchism, you continue to refuse to extend that courtesy to the vastly differing ideas/subteties surrounding nationalims and national/cultural identity. if you continue to do this, there's little point continuing to engage with you on this.

3. QED

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 15 2005 13:24
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:
Quote:
4. leaving Scotland free to choose foreign alliances on the basis of consent of the people. I'd like to be in what seems to be a rapidly evolving EU, but many others don't and would prefer us to become like Norway, Iceland & the Faroes instead. Practically- Leaving Nato

The Eu is neo-liberal, the new constitution is an attack on workers rights, and governments of the whole continent are introducing restrictive asylum policies, so it's not just the right-wing press to blame, it's a concerted movement throughout Europe

Quote:
5. In my view (and in the view of many democartic nationalists) Scotland as a nation is not one monolithic entity. It's a community of diverse communities- based on differing geographical, cultural, religious backgrounds. On the matter of geography, I'd like to see governemntal decisions taken at as local a level as possible- subsidiarity. Recognising that a policy good for Glasgow might be bad for Shetland, I'd like to continually develove as much power as possible away from the centre and back towards the people. I don't want Scotland to be independent for its own sake or out of some hatred for 'the English'- i want it so that communities are able to make their own choices as freely as poss, un meanced by a centralising, ureaucratic, interventionist state.

But who will be making those decisions? Bureaucrats or the actual people, and again, why not expand it to the whole UK?

Quote:
The last time I hinted at this someone sneered about 'realpolitik' as though it was some cast iron, inevitable occurrence. It's not (unless you belive that it is, and sit on your arse and do nothing other than moan about it from a position of oh-so-superior 'revolutionary' insight)

Ignore realpolitik all you want, just don't expect it to disappear.

Quote:

Which is what politics is supposed to be about, but isn't.

and never shall be.

Quote:
Scot Nats on this thread all hate the English and have a chip on their shoulder and are reactionaries and are whisky drinking pre-1745 nostalgiacs.

hooray

Breaking up the UK could be achieved within the UK? Yet again, you're not making any sense.

On my other points here 1. No Uk governemnt has yet countenanced the destruction of trident/becoming nuclear free- George Robertson was saying that very thing on R4 this morning.

On the EU possibly becoming 'neo-liberal'- again you're presenting this as inevitable. You also ignore the alternative of being a stand alone social democracy a la Norway, Iceland etc. I don't want to derail this debate with a nitpicking of the EU constitution, though i would contribute to another thread on that topic.

I don't ignore 'realpolitik'- I just don;t see all polticians acting according to realpolitk at all times in the future as inevitable.

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 15 2005 13:32
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:

1. blah blah...the point is this, if you see the nationalism of the SNP as one and the same as the imperial nationalism of the kings, queens, kaisers and tsars of 1914, then you have a problem.

Yes, it's called nationalism

Quote:
Yes, I'm aware of the SNPs pronouncements re: corporation tax and further road building. No, I don't agree with them. Just as I'm sure there have been 'anarchist' pronouncements/statements/actions in the past which you haven't agreed with either. I hope....

usually the Nationalist ones

Quote:
2. I don;t agree for a moment that social class is 'empirical'. I note also that whilst you spend time outlining a firley well thought out view of anarchism, you continue to refuse to extend that courtesy to the vastly differing ideas/subteties surrounding nationalims and national/cultural identity. if you continue to do this, there's little point continuing to engage with you on this.

cool

Bodach gun bhrigh's picture
Bodach gun bhrigh
Offline
Joined: 7-07-05
Aug 15 2005 13:41
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:

Breaking up the UK could be achieved within the UK? Yet again, you're not making any sense.

What I meant, thickie, was that any of the aims you hope to achieve by independence, could be achieved on a wider scale within the UK, or do the English not need democracy as well?

Quote:
On my other points here 1. No Uk governemnt has yet countenanced the destruction of trident/becoming nuclear free- George Robertson was saying that very thing on R4 this morning.

Oh well that's us fucked then

Quote:
On the EU possibly becoming 'neo-liberal'- again you're presenting this as inevitable. You also ignore the alternative of being a stand alone social democracy a la Norway, Iceland etc. I don't want to derail this debate with a nitpicking of the EU constitution, though i would contribute to another thread on that topic.

No it already is neo-liberal, and I'm sure there are still social inequalities in these countries.

Quote:
I don't ignore 'realpolitik'- I just don;t see all polticians acting according to realpolitk at all times in the future as inevitable.

Tough shit

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 15 2005 13:41
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:

1. blah blah...the point is this, if you see the nationalism of the SNP as one and the same as the imperial nationalism of the kings, queens, kaisers and tsars of 1914, then you have a problem.

Yes, it's called nationalism

I suppose on that basis all socialists must be regarded as nazis, as the NSDAP had the word 'socialist' in its name?

What a simplistic fuckwit you are.

The Good Soldie...
Offline
Joined: 1-08-05
Aug 15 2005 13:46
Bodach gun bhrigh wrote:
The Good Soldier Svejk wrote:

Breaking up the UK could be achieved within the UK? Yet again, you're not making any sense.

What I meant, thickie, was that any of the aims you hope to achieve by independence, could be achieved on a wider scale within the UK, or do the English not need democracy as well?

Quote:
On my other points here 1. No Uk governemnt has yet countenanced the destruction of trident/becoming nuclear free- George Robertson was saying that very thing on R4 this morning.

Oh well that's us fucked then

Quote:
On the EU possibly becoming 'neo-liberal'- again you're presenting this as inevitable. You also ignore the alternative of being a stand alone social democracy a la Norway, Iceland etc. I don't want to derail this debate with a nitpicking of the EU constitution, though i would contribute to another thread on that topic.

No it already is neo-liberal, and I'm sure there are still social inequalities in these countries.

Quote:
I don't ignore 'realpolitik'- I just don;t see all polticians acting according to realpolitk at all times in the future as inevitable.

Tough shit

What the English people's views on 'democracy' etc is is up to them, I'd have thought. I don't live there and haven;t for many years, up to them to decide for themselves.

Anyway. I really can;t be bothered with your Spartist ramblings any more. I'll wait to see if Volin's back later.