Share

From this page you can share For John. - How is the WSM soft on nationalism? to a social bookmarking site or email a link to the page.
Social WebE-mail
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
For John. - How is the WSM soft on nationalism?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from libcom.org
(Your Name) saw this article on libcom.org and thought you would like to see it.
tags:
December 27th, 2006 by georgestapleton

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.

Comments