For John. - How is the WSM soft on nationalism?
Dec 27 2006 02:10
Split from here cause I didn't want to de-rail the thread.
John. wrote:
Devrim wrote:
First, and most importantly I would like to ask why people think that the ‘Platformist’ trend has developed to be a collection of groups which share a common position that is pro-trade union work, and soft on national liberation struggles.I think this is basically due to the primacy of the WSM pushing Platformism and making contacts about the world trying to kickstart and influence new/nascent groups, I don't think it's anything inherent to "platformism". Look at the AF, for example, which was kinda platformist. I don't think NEFAC are soft on nationalism other than the 1 member - wayne.
I dont think we're any softer on nationalism than NEFAC. I mean I'm a bit of a diddly-i-'n'-whack-fol-de-day-sure-she's-a-grand-aul-country-to-be
-sure-to-be sure leprechaun twat. But in terms of political analysis I don't think we're soft at all.
I mean I appreciate that perhaps we were but our position on nationalism and NLMs is very different to what it was 5 years ago.
I'm not really interested in another thread on the WSM position on nationalism as oppossed to the left-communist line, but only in how the WSM line on nationalism and national liberation etc. as against the NEFAC line.
I'd have thought they're pretty much the same.
Dec 27 2006 02:51
#2
Quote:
if you are trying to set up a group here with scottish nationalists (dundee + co)
There's a lot of unfair assumptions in that one wee clause John.
Dec 27 2006 03:04
#3
Dundee_United wrote:
Quote:
if you are trying to set up a group here with scottish nationalists (dundee + co)There's a lot of unfair assumptions in that one wee clause John.
Sorry I'm tired and have had a fair bit to drink, you're the only person I know of who's involved in this thing, and you have spoken very strongly in favour of scottish nationalism and "independence." Also I remember WSM people didn't answer my questions about whether they were helping you start your group. So again I apologise, I'll respond to this in the morning when hopefully I'll be less accidentally offensive.
Dec 27 2006 09:05
#4
It is difficult to talk about NEFAC's position on national liberation. I know there is a formal one, which I actually agree with, but with people like Wayne Price allowed to make a public mockery of it, one wonders what the words on the paper mean.
Of course a groups practical approach is of utmost importance. Joe Black suggests that revolutionaries work inside NLM:
Joe Black wrote:
a general aim of involvement in mass movements of the opppressed
While groups may have what appear to be similar positions, they may draw very different conclusions from them, and have very different practices.
Earlier this year we received a new position paper from a group in Turkey on national liberation. The political content of which we could agree with. The letter that accompanied it said that they were discussing it implications, things like whether they should organise joint meetings with the nationalists or not.
There can be differences between groups that claim to hold the same positions, let alone with the WSM and its 'Maoist' theory of imperialism.
Devrim
Dec 27 2006 14:57
#5
In theory both NEFAC and WSM positions are broadly compatable with
We oppose imperialism but put forward anarchism as an alternative goal to nationalism. We defend grassroots anti-imperialist movements while arguing for an anarchist rather than nationalist strategy.
http://www.anarkismo.net/docs.php?id=1
There really isn't any reason to expect the positions to be indentical, nor indeed any senible reason for significant work to make them identical.
Devrim wrote:
Joe Black suggests that revolutionaries work inside NLM
What I actually said was
I think here is might be useful to note that I used 'movements' rather than 'organisations', the two are not the same. My basic point would be many if not all NLM's have included proletarian strands, formal or informal, that sought to use the conditions created by such struggles to create radical working class democracy. These are often deeply buried in the history because remembering that agenda suits neither the imperialists, the (if victorous) new nationalist ruling class nor indeed any of the variants of leninism that promote unconditional support (which includes most if not all trotskyists). We've done a bit of work uncovering this in relation to Ireland, various articles that illustrate what I mean can be found at
http://www.wsm.ie/history
and
http://www.struggle.ws/rbr/rbr4_1798.html
As above I find yoru use of 'soft' in relation to this politically useless as it confuses 'hard' rhetoric with the ability to influence events. Being really 'hard' but having no influence is pretty worthless.
Dec 27 2006 21:12
#6
Quote:
We oppose imperialism but put forward anarchism as an alternative goal to nationalism. We defend grassroots anti-imperialist movements while arguing for an anarchist rather than nationalist strategy.
Haha, how's that not soft on nationalism, Joey? You oppose what you call "imperialism" (practically nation states you live under with perhaps a few expectations), and while embracing ones who oppose what you call imperialism, you tend to like the grassroots "nationalist movements" more and feel obliged to defending the "anarchist" strategy... What a hard line on nationalism, that is! Way to go Joey, what's gonna be the next step for the glorious platformist movement, will you guys end up joining the NLM?
Dec 27 2006 21:45
#7
Leo Uilleann wrote:
Quote:
We oppose imperialism but put forward anarchism as an alternative goal to nationalism. We defend grassroots anti-imperialist movements while arguing for an anarchist rather than nationalist strategy.Haha, how's that not soft on nationalism, Joey? You oppose what you call "imperialism" (practically nation states you live under with perhaps a few expectations), and while embracing ones who oppose what you call imperialism, you tend to like the grassroots "nationalist movements" more and feel obliged to defending the "anarchist" strategy... What a hard line on nationalism, that is! Way to go Joey, what's gonna be the next step for the glorious platformist movement, will you guys end up joining the NLM?
hoho.
you might of course, for the sake of diversity, employ another debating strategy, namely the coherent criticism of opponents' points and/or the proposition of counter-points.
Dec 27 2006 21:51
#8
Quote:
you might of course, for the sake of diversity, employ another debating strategy, namely the coherent criticism of opponents' points and/or the proposition of counter-points.
Been there, done that, didn't get a decent reply - not so surprisingly.
Dec 27 2006 22:21
#9
Quote:
you're the only person I know of who's involved in this thing, and you have spoken very strongly in favour of scottish nationalism and "independence."
a) That debate was a long time ago now. People's opinions shift.
b) Dundee is not dictator of the group.
c) He only ever said he thought it would be an improvement anyway, not that it was his primary political goal.
Dec 29 2006 21:53
#10
Quote:
Haha, how's that not soft on nationalism, Joey? You oppose what you call "imperialism" (practically nation states you live under with perhaps a few expectations), and while embracing ones who oppose what you call imperialism, you tend to like the grassroots "nationalist movements" more and feel obliged to defending the "anarchist" strategy... What a hard line on nationalism, that is! Way to go Joey, what's gonna be the next step for the glorious platformist movement, will you guys end up joining the NLM?
though I do NOT appreciate the sarcastic tone of this post, I do wonder about the content that it implies. I feel that the WSM and NEFAC are one way on paper and another way in practice. I understand that an organization has a position paper, but to be able to be a member of that organization and voice opinions in contradiction to that organization is alarming.
Nationalism is of primary importance to the capitalist state. I would venture to say that it is the fundamental ideology of capitalism. At the advent of the capitalist victory during the war of the roses, the first act of the victors was an invasion of Ireland. Embryonic capitalism illustrated what nationalism will always do. A hard line against all forms of nationalism must be seen as a fundamental necessity to struggling for a communist world.
Jan 1 2007 15:36
#11
wangwei wrote:
though I do NOT appreciate the sarcastic tone of this post, I do wonder about the content that it implies. I feel that the WSM and NEFAC are one way on paper and another way in practice. I understand that an organization has a position paper, but to be able to be a member of that organization and voice opinions in contradiction to that organization is alarming.
Read Wayne Price:
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1016&search_text=wayne price&results_offset=20
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=3614&search_text=wayne price
and his comments in a discussion on the subject:
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=3684&type=debate
Does this in your oppinion agree with:
NEFAC-aims and principles wrote:
National LiberationWe do not support the ideology of national liberation movements, which claims that there are common interests held between the working class and the native ruling class in the face of foreign domination. Although we support working class struggles against political and economic imperialism, racism, genocide and colonization, we are opposed to the creation of a new ruling class. We believe that the defeat of imperialism will only come about through a social revolution waged against both the imperialists and the local ruling class. This social revolution will have to spread across national borders. We further reject all forms of nationalism as this only serves
to redefine divisions in the international working class. The working class has no country, and national boundaries will be eliminated. We must encourage and develop international solidarity which will one day lay the basis for a global social revolution.
Devrim
Jan 2 2007 00:54
#12
I found the discussion I mention above where georgestapleton and jack white were defending irish "national identity." For some reason the formatting is totally fucked up, it doesn't seem to recognise the original post as a forum topic... I was a bit rude in it too, but it was a while ago...
http://libcom.org/node/8420?page=2
Also Joe's post above saying "We defend grassroots anti-imperialist movements" makes it sound like that's being soft on nationalism. And if it's not, what does that mean? Are the IRA, INLA, Hezbollah, Hamas, PLO "grassroots anti-imperialist movements"? If not what are? And what does "defend" mean?
Jan 2 2007 02:46
#13
Devrim wrote:
It is difficult to talk about NEFAC's position on national liberation. I know there is a formal one, which I actually agree with, but with people like Wayne Price allowed to make a public mockery of it, one wonders what the words on the paper mean.
i didnt think wayne was making a mockery, but instead voicing his minority position, which, when contrasted to NEFAC's position is far more detailed and nuanced. Wayne, has attempted to think strategically about issues like nationalism and relationships to these movements in all their complexities.
as minorities ourselves, i think it is imperitive to identify any and all critical and autonomous strands that exist within "other" political and cultural spheres. by establishing links and perhaps co-operating on common projects - community self-defense, anti-racist/anti-sectarian campaigns, strike support, workers centers, etc.. organic links are made and we dont stand from the outside.
as for defending nationalist movements (like Hammas or Hezballah) i think it is correct to oppose the actions and interests of the countries we reside in. and with situations like Hammas, well, whatever deficientcy there is in electoralism, Hammas was voted in by a mass of the populace against the blatant corruption and beauracracy of Fatah. so the core super countries disagree, they champion democracy but do all they can to undermine the democratic choice. i say that the ability of the populace to decide on their government should be upheld, even if we disagree.
like in another thread on coups, i think revolutionary anarchists should defend, say, the Bolivarian Revolution against a coup from the Right, although the politics of Chavez are reforms from above, facts show mass participation of the poorer masses in community re-construction with education, collective farming etc.. rev anarchists should participate and expand on the popular activity while remaining critical of the limits and eventual repressive nature of the State.
Jan 2 2007 02:52
#14
I might be wrong but I always thought one of the principles of the platform was that members can disagree with a position paper but nevertheless cannot contradict it in public.
Now I have heard Joe use the "personal capacity" argument before, but I don't buy it. It seems that people could argue any old bollox and then put "personal capacity" on it at the end.
Surely the point of having principles and some core positions is that people atleast share the same foundations and as such their political position should follow from that.
Jan 2 2007 18:14
#15
revol68 wrote:
I might be wrong but I always thought one of the principles of the platform was that members can disagree with a position paper but nevertheless cannot contradict it in public.
Yep your wrong and I've told you your wrong before. But seeing as your trolling might fool others here once again is what our constitution says on the topic
revol68 wrote:
13.6 If they are speaking as a WSM member at any event they are expected not to contradict existing policies. This does not apply of they are speaking as a mandated delegate of a union or campaigning group. It also does not apply if they are speaking in an individual capacity at a debate or public meeting but in this case they should indicate that they are disagreeing with the policy of the WSM.
Jan 2 2007 18:22
#16
Where does libcom or the rest of the internet fall into this. I've yet to see Wayne Price say he's disagreeing with the NEFAC line and I've yet to see you say your position is in disagreement with the WSM's position, though i'd have assumed it was in regards to stuff like running in elections or supporting candidates. You have said not everyone in the WSM shares your opinion but it's not clear whose opinion is indeed the one representative of the WSM.
Furthermore what's the point of theoretical and tactical unity if people can openly disagree with core positions in public meetings as long as they don't say it's the WSM's position? I mean if you were the only WSMer in a meeting and you offered your personal opinion would you have to make clear where the WSM disagrees?
I mean numerous times you have pointed people back to the WSM position papers when they challenge your own arguments, which seems rather strange because you are at once putting forward your own position in a personal capacity but then when that is taking a bit of grief you run back to the WSM's paper and tell people it's "all in it".
Also I'd appreciate if you didn't try to pass every question and criticism off as trolling.
Jan 2 2007 18:30
#17
revol68 wrote:
Where does libcom or the rest of the internet fall into this.
Err obviously a lot further down the scale then a public meeting.
Frankly I think your just demonstrating your hobbyism again here. In the real world people would think you were nuts if you all pretended to agree 100% with what must be 50,000 words of policy. Pretending to have that level of agreement only makes sense if you never expect to have to interact in a serious way with people outside your circle.
Jan 2 2007 18:34
#18
revol68 wrote:
Also I'd appreciate if you didn't try to pass every question and criticism off as trolling.
But a lot of your posts are trolling.
You tend to have 4 or 5 stock arguments (this is one) that you reuse again and again. With all them you seem to be incapable of arguing your position through more than a couple of replies. With this and other issues I see you raising an issue for the umpteenth time only to slink off once things become too complex for you. And then two weeks later you pop up with the same issue again.
That is text book trolling.
Jan 2 2007 19:08
#19
I don't see how it's trolling to ask how the whole personal capacity thing works. I mean wouldn't you admit yourself that the way Wayne Price writes and publishes his stuff doesn't make very clear that NEFAC as an organisation disagrees, infact I'd assume he wouldn't see any disagreement and argue he is interpreting the position correctly, no? I mean alot of peoples only knowledge of NEFAC comes from reading his essays online and so you can understand that people mistake his positions for NEFACS. As such surely he should make it explicit that his views are not shared by NEFAC as an organisation?
In regards to online discussion I ask because often when you or Gurrier post you come across as your speaking for the WSM, especially when you bow out of discussions and direct people to the WSM position paper as if that holds all the answers, which would imply what you've been arguing is the WSM line, no?
As for trolling well I don't think that's true at all, as it's hardly just me that finds the "Platformist" approach to personal capacity rather confusing, Devrim, John and a good few others are still quite baffled by the WSM's position on nationalism, whilst i'm still baffled about your thoughts on the unions and where it stands with the rest of the WSM and it's organisational position.
Jan 2 2007 20:01
#20
revol68 wrote:
I don't see how it's trolling to ask how the whole personal capacity thing works.
It's not - however 'asking' for the third or fourth time in so many months after it has been explained is either trolling or the result of really bad substance abuse.
revol68 wrote:
I mean wouldn't you admit yourself that the way Wayne Price writes and publishes his stuff doesn't make very clear that NEFAC as an organisation disagrees,
No member of NEFAC has said they consider Wayne to be outside their position and MaRK has said he thinks it just inside. And that is all that matters - the opinions of the wannabe external libcommies leadership probably counts less with NEFAC then it does with the WSM in that respect.
revol68 wrote:
especially when you bow out of discussions and direct people to the WSM position paper as if that holds all the answers
As far as I can tell this is a refernce to the recent discussion on our Imperialism paper. So yes I think it is fair enough to ask people commentating to first have a read of that paper. Also in that case I think I pretty much do agree with it all.
But no this doesn't imply the reverse - what a strange implication in fact.
revol68 wrote:
As for trolling well I don't think that's true at all, as it's hardly just me that finds the "Platformist" approach to personal capacity rather confusing, Devrim, John and a good few others are still quite baffled by the WSM's position on nationalism, whilst i'm still baffled about your thoughts on the unions and where it stands with the rest of the WSM and it's organisational position.
There really is no need to be - I actually explained that for you on the thread you have been avoiding returning to.
I think your 'confusion' arises from not getting beyond discussing such issues as rhetorical slogans. This makes things very black and white but is pretty much a gurantee of irrelevancy.
The purpose of position papers is not to form some set of documents we can use to denounce each other but to provide a basis for action on the basis of a theoretical and tactical unity.
Jan 2 2007 20:12
#21
Quote:
The purpose of position papers is not to form some set of documents we can use to denounce each other but to provide a basis for action on the basis of a theoretical and tactical unity.
yes i would pretty much agree with that, as you know I've never got particularly hung up on groups having this or that position paper, i'm far more interested in what actual members of the group argue and to what ends.
But if your going to use a position paper shouldn't it atleast lay out basic points of unity in relation to things like national liberation, or perspectives on the unions? I thought the whole point was to lay out tactical unity but I haven't seen much in the way of theorectical or tactical unity in terms of the WSM position on unions. I mean really hwo useful is a position paper that is soo loose that some people think that electioneering in unions wouldn't be a breach whilst others would be completely opposed to it. I mean the ASF or Organise! never saw ourselves as particularly tight in the platformist tradition but we've never had such divergent takes on union elections, it would just seem completely against the very simple A&P's.
Jan 2 2007 20:17
#22
Quote:
No member of NEFAC has said they consider Wayne to be outside their position and MaRK has said he thinks it just inside. And that is all that matters - the opinions of the wannabe external libcommies leadership probably counts less with NEFAC then it does with the WSM in that respect.
Its true. I have my own disagreements with some of Wayne's positions and nuanced interpretations, but I have yet to hear a convincing arguement from the ultra-left peanut gallery that places anything Wayne has said in regards to 'national liberation' outside our group's formal position.
As far as I have ever known Wayne...
- he does not support the ideology of national liberation movement.
- he has never claimed there are common interests between the working class and the native ruling class in the face of foreign domination.
- he does not support the creation of a new ruling class.
- he agrees that it is only through trans-national social revolution that imperialism will be effectively defeated.
- he rejects nationalism.
- he supports eliminating national boundries.
- he considers himself an internationalist.
How he intreprets all this and how he thinks anarchists should relate to NLMs in his own mind is a little beyond our control. When we come up with an effective re-education program we'll let you know.
Jan 2 2007 20:28
#23
revol68 wrote:
I thought the whole point was to lay out tactical unity but I haven't seen much in the way of theorectical or tactical unity in terms of the WSM position on unions.
You probably need to consider the fact that what you see as 'the all important question that needs to be shouted about from the roof tops every time someone mentions union' we see as a minor tactical question that we are not that bothered about. And from what MartinH has said on that subject (see http://libcom.org/node/6599 ) it appears SolFed have a similar view. In fact I reckon the only reason you see it as important is because it enables you to be different.
The Organise A+Ps do not in fact say anything about it either - when I pointed this out before I was told by the leadership that of course if it would arose they would instruct the membership on the correct way to interpret what does exist. I'm paraphrasing but that is what it would boil down to if you got beyond half a dozen active members who were sick of the sight of each other.
Plus I find your comparison with the online behaviour of Organise weird. From where I'm sitting it looks like WSM members are very good about not rising to your attempts to start rows between us (and yes I know about your PMs). Whereas the Organise members seem to fight with each other whenever Bobby posts, about the only solidarity I've seen are Bouls regular attempts to defend the indefensible when it comes to your bullying.
The fact that we don't all have to pretend to all think alike probably helps.
Jan 2 2007 20:33
#24
Quote:
From where I'm sitting it looks like WSM members are very good about not rising to your attempts to start rows between us (and yes I know about your PMs).
Just about to leave work, but what in the name of christ are you on about?
Jan 2 2007 21:55
#25
Quote:
How he intreprets all this and how he thinks anarchists should relate to NLMs in his own mind is a little beyond our control. When we come up with an effective re-education program we'll let you know.
I guess the dilemma is that he doesn't just think about NLMs in his own mind, but writes essays on his ideas that are pretty well read. He is a known member of an organization, and writes something that is essentially divergent than the position that the organization has taken.
Nationalism is anethema to revolution, and history has proven this time and time again. Internationalism needs to be the foundation of the social revolution. I am wondering if he makes a distinction between particular social cultural norms and natinalism, as there may be one there.
So, saying that he does not support the "ideology of the national liberation movement" yet supports the "oppressor against the oppressed" seems to create a contradiction.
Jan 2 2007 22:04
#26
wangwei wrote:
I guess the dilemma is that he doesn't just think about NLMs in his own mind, but writes essays on his ideas that are pretty well read. He is a known member of an organization, and writes something that is essentially divergent than the position that the organization has taken.
Talk about missing the point!
His position is not consideded 'divergent' by any NEFAC members or indeed by the members of other organisations who operate in a similar way. He represents one pole of a spectrum as to how their positions is best interpreted.
Any useful position will leave space for a spectrum of opinions, otherwise it becomes a mechnical recipe which never actually meets up with real world conditions.
wangwei wrote:
seems to create a contradiction.
Politics is all about exploring and overcoming such contradictions - the real world is not a simple place, while we can prepare to deal with difficult questions we can't draw up a blueprint in advance and expect to simply implement it.
Jan 2 2007 22:25
#27
Quote:
I guess the dilemma is that he doesn't just think about NLMs in his own mind, but writes essays on his ideas that are pretty well read. He is a known member of an organization, and writes something that is essentially divergent than the position that the organization has taken.
Er, okay... except that I just said that I don't believe he has written anything that is fundementally out of line with our group's basic position.
Quote:
Nationalism is anethema to revolution, and history has proven this time and time again. Internationalism needs to be the foundation of the social revolution.
Yeah... and? Who's disagreeing with this?
Quote:
So, saying that he does not support the "ideology of the national liberation movement" yet supports the "oppressor against the oppressed" seems to create a contradiction.
You have now completely lost me. Where has Wayne ever supported "the oppressor against the oppressed"? What are you talking about?
Jan 3 2007 00:13
#28
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
You have now completely lost me. Where has Wayne ever supported "the oppressor against the oppressed"? What are you talking about?
I think he means to say supporting the oppressed against the oppressor, as in supporting the "oppressed nation" against the imperialists.
revol68 wrote:
I've yet to see Wayne Price say he's disagreeing with the NEFAC line
In a comment to his latest text on anarkismo, he does write
Quote:
(1) It should go without saying that I am not a spokesperson for NEFAC. I express my own opinions, although they are generally in line with those of the overall federation, I think, with the exception of my support for national liberation (for an anti-nationalist anti-imperialism).
Jan 3 2007 08:02
#29
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
From where I'm sitting it looks like WSM members are very good about not rising to your attempts to start rows between us (and yes I know about your PMs).Just about to leave work, but what in the name of christ are you on about?
any chance of a response on this, it's rather cryptic, and i'm rather concerned JoeBlack might be able to read my love letters to Wayne. 
Jan 3 2007 09:47
#30
Obviously I can't speak for comrade Joe, but it looks like he was saying that the WSM members have not risen to provocations to argue amongst themselves.
Damn, we had this thread before (or maybe a PM from jack white?), on the old forums I found a quote or two from you, and one or two from JoeBlack which I think showed you as being basically supportive of nationalism (and national liberationism). With you it was something you said about Ireland having a national culture. I'm going to bed now but I'll try to look it up tomorrow... Ah but I see you mean organisational line as opposed to members' views. That's a different kettle of fish. I don't have any evidence on that from recent documents to hand - because I haven't read much of them. But WSM people here frequently argue in favour of nat lib, such as Joe being supportive of wayne recently, and if you are trying to set up a group here with scottish nationalists (dundee + co) then that would be another anecdotal scrap. Sorry for being vague, more detail tomorrow.