WSM - hard for nationalism, the saga continues

This is clearly an anti-imperialist line, and one that I support. The partition of Ireland is an imperialist device to divide and exploit the country.

A similar situation would be the partition of Vietnam, or of Korea, or even the partition of Algeria in French-occupied zones, and ones where the rebels held sway. Would you support these partitions as well?

The WSM is taking a principled stand here that is solidly anti-imperialist.

No this is clearly a nationalist line, and supporting it makes you a nationalist. It is interesting that you talk about 'exploiting the country', and not about exploiting the working class, but very predictable.

Really what is this nonsense? Did I say that I supported the partition of Ireland even let alone all of those countries that you mentioned.

What I would say is that the tasks of revolutionaries is to be involved in the struggle of the working class for its own interests, which at the moment are the defence of its living conditions against capitalist attacks, not in joining behind whatever national bourgeoisie you deem to be oppressed today, and fighting for the nation.

No, the WSM is taking a completely opportunist line designed to appeal to left republicanism, but which has nothing to say to the workers as workers.

Devrim

There are a lot of issues where the position of revolutionaries is outside of the binary poles that are presented to us as choices.

An obvious one, which I am sure everone would agree on, would be taking sides in the First world war. As we are both aware people who called themselves both anarchists, and Marxists did take the sides of different imperialist powers.

One which is an important issue in Turkey, and maybe not so clear a choice to everyone, is the headscarf issue. I will put some details on a seperate thread as it sort of derails this one.

I think that the issue of partion is one of these issues. You write that:

I agree that in the short term the removal of partion 'would probably deepen sectarian divisions in the northern working class'. In fact I think that it could even lead to all out civil war, which would be a dreadful perspective. That does not mean that I support partion.

I think that the position taken by 'Organise', and the one that we would take is that the struggle is focused on the defence of workers interests. I don't think that this equates with not having a position, but rather opposes both positions against the interests of the working class.

I feel that this 'need to have a position on everything' stems from the desire to involve yourselves in movements, and be relevant to 'political life'.

I agree with Boul when he said on the other thread:

Devrim

You are arguing for the partition of the United Kingdom. This is an imperialist device to divide and exploit the country.

A similar situation would be the partition of Vietnam, or of Korea, or even the partition of Algeria in French-occupied zones, and ones where the rebels held sway. Would you support these partitions as well?

this prospect, often raised in the past, is i think pessimistic. in the short term there would be a surge in violence, but that there would be civil war has always struck me as unionist propaganda. any more just not enough people are so invested in such identity-mongering that they'd make a furnace out of it. some, yes, but not enough.

Yes, I didn't say it 'would' lead to all out civil war. I said 'could even'. I don't see that even today it is impossible.
Devrim

Now really folks this has just got weird (ref to the Normans, Vikings, Chinese balls). Unionists have been accused of saber rattling and 'propaganda' about threats of civil war in the past - it was pretty delusional in 1914 to 1916 to regard this simply as propaganda so I reallt wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it if they were faced with the actual proposition of a united Ireland.

But back to the original article. I actually remember members of the WSM asking me what I thought the anarchist position on the removal of articles 2 and 3 should be, as I remember I said "let them fucking delete the whole constitution bit by bit", flippant perhaps but really my point was that as an anarchist I really didn't give a fuck about whether or not the southern government removed the claim to the whole territory from its constitution.

But this goes a bit deeper, and really the republican/nationalist (including left republican and 'leftist') readings of Irish and British history that continue to inform the WSM position are at the heart of this. Yes, Ireland has a colonial past but the WSM position that constantly seeks to explain partition in terms of "the British State is getting away with occupying the place" ignores the native basis of Unionism and the fact that the north-east only remains part of the Union because of Unionist mobilisation against the British government at the time of the third Home Rule crisis from 1912 on.

The explanation of the 'material basis' for sectarianism is, while not entirely incorrect without foundation, full of omissions, and simplistic, hackneyed and one sided. Loyalists are simply 'tricked'. No acknowledgement is given of Catholic sectarianism, or the nature of the new southern state in relation to the northern one - both created after partition. The economic status of the south, the confessional nature of the state and the position of Eire in WWII also contributed towards and helped maintain the growing division between north and south. The growth in the 19th century of an Irish nationalism that was premised on Catholicism also helped ensure that the nationalist and republican projects of nation building could not hope to incorporate northern Protestants. They seldom ever tried, but thats an aside.

The territorial claim on the north by the southern government is certainly not the 'cause' of the troubles but it was a factor. The presentation of not just an internal republican/nationalist threat (that was often sectarian and often counted in the lives of working class Protestants) with a hostile neighbouring territory certainly helped keep the troubles going. While the south maintained a claim to the north Unionism could use such a threat to its existance to unite very disparate groups and individuals behind the defence of 'their' state and the union.

And what working class Protestant in the post war period would have swapped the relative security of the British welfare state for the economic stagnation, high unemployment and rampant economic emigration of the south? Or be expected to in the name of 'national unity'.

The north came to be represented, again, as being maintained by British imperialism post 1969 with the bringing in of British troops. By 1972 while the poroguing of Stormont was what the republican movement wanted, the Loyalist backlash and the imposition of direct rule, along with their role in 'defending' working class catholic communities allowed them to represent the struggle, originally for civil rights, as a centuries old national conflict against foreign oppression.

All the abuses listed in the article are those of Unionism, Loyalism and the British state, no criticism is made of Irish nationalist armed struggle. That anarchists premise a position on the existance of an unrealised and mythical national territory is at the heart of this nonsense, to oppose the removal of "Article 2:The National territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its' islands and its' territorial seas" is nationalist and makes no sense and cannot be related to the goals of libertarian communism - workers control, direct democracy, internationalism. And what about those bad Irish workers, only 300 of whom came out to oppose the extradition of Angelo Fusco, talk about acting in a manner contrary to their interests, or maybe they didn't realise their interests were supposed to be national?

Again this article calls for the left republican 32 county socialist republic (what happened to going beyond slogans?), though the WSM don't see that as a useful phrase 'anymore'. The claim that anarchists will be campaigning in this referendum also seeks to claim this as a position for 'anarchists' in general rather than just the WSM (a propagandist slight of hand) while this was certainly not a position taken by an earlier incarnation of Organise! Of course the counter to this will be we simply gazed at our shoes until the issue went away.

But Joe the fact remains that, no matter how much you highlight the anarchist sounding excuses for maintaining such a position, the defence of Article 2, of 2 and 3, does not relate to any principled defence or promotion of libertarian communist politics nor is it related to the interests of workers as workers in any part of this island.

Really we need to look at breaking down communal barriers and conflicting nationalist aspirations, this article for all its protests to the contrary actually seeks to place anarchism on the side of one of those blocs. Why? It seems to me that some romantic notions about those who oppose a particular state seem to cloud the judgement and fuck up the critical faculties of a great many anarchists.

well 1916 isn't 2007.
but frankly i should probably defer to people on the spot.

hmm ... sounds like my old copy of "eire nua"!

Mostly I want to disagree with gurrier though.