For Steven. - How is the WSM soft on nationalism?

379 posts / 0 new
Last post
georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Dec 27 2006 02:10
For Steven. - How is the WSM soft on nationalism?

Split from here cause I didn't want to de-rail the thread.

Steven. 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.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 27 2006 02:45

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.

Dundee_United
Offline
Joined: 10-04-06
Dec 27 2006 02:51
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.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 27 2006 03:04
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.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 27 2006 09:05

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

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Dec 27 2006 14:57

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.

Leo's picture
Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Dec 27 2006 21:12
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?

dara
Offline
Joined: 16-07-05
Dec 27 2006 21:45
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.

Leo's picture
Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Dec 27 2006 21:51
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.

Moh Kohn
Offline
Joined: 22-12-06
Dec 27 2006 22:21
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.

wangwei
Offline
Joined: 20-09-06
Dec 29 2006 21:53
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.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jan 1 2007 15:36
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 Liberation

We 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

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 2 2007 00:54

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?

blackstarbhoy
Offline
Joined: 2-01-07
Jan 2 2007 02:46
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.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Jan 2 2007 18:14
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.

http://www.wsm.ie/story/32

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Jan 2 2007 18:30
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.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Jan 2 2007 18:34
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.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Jan 2 2007 20:01
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.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jan 2 2007 20:17
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.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Jan 2 2007 20:28
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.

wangwei
Offline
Joined: 20-09-06
Jan 2 2007 21:55
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.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Jan 2 2007 22:04
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.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jan 2 2007 22:25
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?

Felix Frost's picture
Felix Frost
Offline
Joined: 30-12-05
Jan 3 2007 00:13
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).

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Jan 3 2007 09:47

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.

Bobby
Offline
Joined: 22-09-05
Jan 3 2007 10:03
JoeBlack2 wrote:
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.

Thanks cery much Joe but i dont need anyone to defend me cas i look after myself.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 3 2007 16:27

Can you and the WSM people stop your off-topic spat please.

George, has your question been answered?

Dust
Offline
Joined: 6-02-06
Jan 3 2007 20:42

I am not really sure how it could have been. George asked two main questions. How the WSMs position differed from NEFAC and how we were soft on Nationalism. Neither were really dealt with properly.

The relevant parts of our position paper weren't really discussed at all on either this thread or the one dealing with the position paper itself.

The NEFAC discussion was mainly concerned with Wayne Prices views and if he went outside the positions of NEFAC.

The one that concerns me is the second question. Are WSM soft on Nationalism?

There were a number of reasons put forward explaining why we are

1: GeogeS and JackW engaged in a debate eight months ago where they confessed to like speaking Irish and defended the concept of an Irish national culture. In the debate both pointed out that it wasn’t the WSM position.

2: People asserted that

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.

was soft on Nationalism.

Firstly it should be pointed out that this is the Anarkismo.net editorial statement, which we have signed up to, rather than the WSM position paper.

The first sentence of this seems uncontroversial. The second is a bit problematic as it is open to various interpretations. I prefer the phraseology we use our selves.

Quote:
13…..In the case of National Liberation Movement we defend the struggle against imperialism while attacking the nationalist basis of this struggle….

Coupled with

Quote:
9…..So rather then supporting, critically or otherwise, these local ruling classes we look to support the working class (including rural workers) of those countries in there struggle against imperialism and their own ruling class…..

What i feel are the relevent parts of our position paper are

Quote:
9. There are a limited number of countries whose ruling class are unwilling for one reason or another to become partners in this order. In 2001 Libya, Iraq, Cuba and North Korea were the most obvious examples. In some cases like Cuba the ruling class are unwilling to open their markets fully to the global economy. In others regional military conflict has resulted in the hostility of the major powers to the current rulers.

The imperialist powers have militarily and economically attacked those states that try to follow their own agenda. Today this often disguised as 'peace keeping' or 'peace enforcement' under the UN flag. While we oppose the imperialist powers we recognise that the states that defy them do so in the interests of their own ruling class rather then their people. So rather then supporting, critically or otherwise, these local ruling classes we look to support the working class (including rural workers) of those countries in there struggle against imperialism and their own ruling class. We make this concrete by offering solidarity including material aid to independent working class and libertarian organisations.

Quote:
11. The National liberation movements of the 20th century were an attempt to defeat imperialism through an alliance of the "progressive" bourgeois and the workers. The bourgeoise always dominated these movements, ensuring that even the 'left' element within them become no more then support for a project of state capitalism. Where an independent workers movement threatened to appear which might have seeked an alternative the bourgeoise quickly reached a temporary or permanent agreement with imperialism in order to suppress this movement.

Quote:
13. Without necessarily supporting each and every project of resistance we see our role as undermining the idea that the neo liberal order is inevitable and that resistance to it is both futile and criminal. In the case of National Liberation Movement we defend the struggle against imperialism while attacking the nationalist basis of this struggle.

14. In relation to each situation we will seek to discover and promote the anti-authoratarian strands within that struggle, particularly those that seek to organise on a class rather then national, religious or ethnic basis and win these to anarchism. We will argue that the interests of the ordinary workers of the imperialist countries lies with the promotion of such strands and not with their own rulers. We will argue for and where possible build working class resistance to the imperialist strategies of their own ruling class and direct links with those in struggle.

15. In countries where NLM's come to power the role of anarchists there would be not to support them but rather to organise for a revolution would replace government with a federation of urban and rural workers assemblies and councils. In Ireland and the European Union our role would be to undermine any imperalist intervertion and argue that the workers of such countries are natural allies of the European Working Class.

http://www.wsm.ie/story/825

I am honestly interested in where people see this as being soft on nationalism.

For the sake of clarity i think it would be a good idea to quote the relevent part of the position paper for the point you are making.

edited to prevent this turning into a debate on the north.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Jan 4 2007 01:15
John. wrote:
George, has your question been answered?

Err i guess I suppose.

In my first post I wrote:
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.

Unfortunately this has turned into another thread on the WSM position on nationalism as oppossed to the left-communist line, which I'm not really interested in.

Dust wrote:
1: GeogeS and JackW engaged in a debate eight months ago where they confessed to like speaking Irish and defended the concept of an Irish national culture. In the debate both pointed out that it wasn’t the WSM position.

2: People asserted that
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.

was soft on Nationalism.

Firstly it should be pointed out that this is the Anarkismo.net editorial statement, which we have signed up to, rather than the WSM position paper.

And seeing as NEFAC have signed up the Anarkismo.net editorial statement they agree with the position.

I opened my post with "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." As a joke because I honestly didn't think you would take my being 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 to be a significant difference between NEFAC and the WSM. I mean the fact that I speak Irish and like irish music and other aspects of irish culture is in my opinion hardly nationalism. But I don't want to have this discussion again. That thread was the only time when a discussion on libcom actually pissed me off.

Regardless it would seem that really the only difference between NEFAC and the WSM is that I speak Irish! Which makes the WSM soft on nationalism relative to NEFAC!!!!

If thats what you think, fair enough.

If thats not what you think then no my question hasn't been answered.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 4 2007 09:20
georgestapleton wrote:
Regardless it would seem that really the only difference between NEFAC and the WSM is that I speak Irish! Which makes the WSM soft on nationalism relative to NEFAC!!!!

If thats what you think, fair enough.

If thats not what you think then no my question hasn't been answered.

George, I'm not an idiot, so obviously that's not what I think. I speak English, but it doesn't mean I believe that there is an English national culture, and certainly not one worth "defending." (But like you said let's not get into that again.)

NEFAC signing up to that statement above makes them also sound soft on nationalism. However I have seen NEFAC people on libcom argue internationalist positions against national liberationists (for example the big Quebec debate), whereas I've only seen WSM people defend national liberation arguments.

But perhaps you could make your agreement with the statement above clearer by answering the questions I posed above?

John. wrote:
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?

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Jan 4 2007 12:03
John. wrote:
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?

Hang on a second, this is a little dishonest for two reasons

1. Its not 'Joes statement' but Joe quoting from the Anarkismo statement which both WSM and NEFAC broadly agree with (and thus hardly a source of difference!)
http://www.anarkismo.net/docs.php?id=1
2. Your editing of the quote leaves a lot to be desired as the bit you snipped sort of answers the question your posing. I've put it back in bold here We defend grassroots anti-imperialist movements while arguing for an anarchist rather than nationalist strategy.

This is meant to be a brief statement, the material DUST posted expands on what the WSM means by it so if you want the collective position you have it there.