Irish unification (26+6=1) - what's wrong with it?

Nationalists are bad at math.

195 - 195 = 0

It goes without saying that the anarchist perspective is one that seeks an end to all borders and divisions but that the anarchist position certainly does not advocate a 32 county sovereign republic run by capitalists.

The attempts by the wider Irish left to foster the 4 green fields makes little to no inroads into working class areas in the North that are deemed Protestant, because despite the apparently socialist rhetoric, it still reeks of Irish nationalism.

The Worker's Party, the radical Peoples' Democracy movement in the late 60's and the exhausted alphabet of splinter groups who present themselves as socialists have all advocated a united 32 county working class as per Connolly's vision but have lacked a clear idea of what lies beyond the fateful day. (And further many of these groups are roughly sympathetic to Marxism, or at least parliamentarian, which creates its own problems).

To much of the Protestant working class, at least historically, the 32 county republic is an extension of the Catholic monoculture advocated by deValera, in which popery will dominate social mores and ergo stunt communities. By and large this attitude is largely correct as this is what Catholicism does however the protesting religions do the very same in their own way and dominate their communities with outmoded mythologies dressed as progress, which in fact merely add oil to the holy flames.

To answer the question this topic poses directly - there is nothing wrong with unification per se but until the lies and treachery of ALL religions are dismantled for all to see, the mythology will continue. The 1932 Outdoor Relief Strike brought workers from all shades together under a common cause, providing the obvious reality that the class can act together for common good when it oversteps the enforced boudaries established by corrupt leadership and suspect clerics who have merely fostered the situation as a foothold for their own social ladders.

Despite their rhetoric the community continues to find common ground. The attempt to force water payments in the North in the last few years created a community-wide reaction and that project was shelved by the State. Given the recent water shortages in the North following the big freeze however, this will no doubt be touted as an excuse to try again to enforce this rip-off on the working class but again it will see a redoubled widespread and cross-community reaction. It is fostering these notions of common ground that might ultimately overturn the differences and create a foundation for a more libertarian focus.

The comparison of the North with Palestine is erroneous, though not entirely. In both situations a territory is under occupation (or sees itself as such) however the expression of that occupation is vastly different in each territory. Palestine is basically an open prison and brutality is common. There are times in the past when this was the case in certain parts of the North, such as South Armagh, however today the occupation is largely economic and somewhat cosmetic.

The association with opaque oppression in Palestine and the presentation of nationalism as a means to overcome is used as a stick to arrouse sympathy for the futile nationalism that desperate romantics continue to convey in the North. There appears to be no clear idea of what lies beyond kicking the oppressor out, and so that vision is short-sighted per se.

The revolutions which swept Europe from 1848 onwards were a reaction against Imperialism, and nationalism became the nom de guerre against the ravages of Empire. But with the subsequent collapse of European empire what was left was a moribund tradition which expressed its reality through 2 World Wars, and continues to wreak havoc.

The dismantling of tradition - nationalism as an emancipatory currency, religion as the cornerstone of moralism - must be exposed so that the idea of a borderless society might not appear to dress itself up in a tricolour.

There was this from Subversion:

http://www.af-north.org/Subversion/ireland.htm

Tojiah

A decidedly non-Irish individual posted up the famous 26+6=1 poster:

I presume that this 'decidedly non-Irish individual' isn't aware that the Republic of Ireland today has 29 counties (as well as five city councils which are similar bodies), so they are a little out of date. Northern Ireland abolished the counties in 1972, and now has twenty six 'unitary authorities'.

I would suggest they revise their equation somewhat. How about this:

(29+5CC)+26UC=1

Not only is it more up to date, but also it adds letters and brackets making it look more mathematically sophisticated.

Devrim

A 'united Ireland' under a capitalist statist system would not only be oppressive and counter to the interests of the entire Irish working class (as all states are), but would almost certainly be a state which specifically oppressed and discriminated against the Protestant working class. Definitely, if the current Republican movements got their way. The romantic notion that Republicans are some sort of 'freedom fighters' against the evil British imperialist state is nonsense, although it has to be recognised that some active Republicans still believe this.

Although historically there is a debate surrounding the role of the IRA (and the loyalist paramilitaries) in defending communities from sectarian attacks from the army/police/eachother (delete as appropriate), what exists now in the broad Republican movement is basically Catholic nationalism, which is every bit as non-progressive as they would make out the loyalist movement to be.

Devrim

Tojiah

A decidedly non-Irish individual posted up the famous 26+6=1 poster:

I presume that this 'decidedly non-Irish individual' isn't aware that the Republic of Ireland today has 29 counties (as well as five city councils which are similar bodies), so they are a little out of date. Northern Ireland abolished the counties in 1972, and now has twenty six 'unitary authorities'.

I would suggest they revise their equation somewhat. How about this:

(29+5CC)+26UC=1

Not only is it more up to date, but also it adds letters and brackets making it look more mathematically sophisticated.

Devrim

Devrim the south has 26 counties and the north 6. You are wrong I am afraid. And admin - flaming removed

Shennanygoat

what exists now in the broad Republican movement is basically Catholic nationalism, which is every bit as non-progressive as they would make out the loyalist movement to be.

To say that the majority of republicans are as reationary as loyalists is stretching the facts a bit too far I would say.

Yes Irish republicanism is a nationalist movement but it has always had within its ranks many who would be far left leaning. This is not to suggest that republicanism is in itself progressive. I am just pointing out that there is more opportunity to engage in arguments about the nature of capitalist society with some republicans whereas loyalists tend to be much more reactionary and tied to the notion of the nation state.

Don't get me wrong as I consider the replublican movements (both the parliamentary and the dissident ones) to be a major obstacle to the development of real class based politics.

back2front

It goes without saying that the anarchist perspective is one that seeks an end to all borders and divisions but that the anarchist position certainly does not advocate a 32 county sovereign republic run by capitalists.

The attempts by the wider Irish left to foster the 4 green fields makes little to no inroads into working class areas in the North that are deemed Protestant, because despite the apparently socialist rhetoric, it still reeks of Irish nationalism.

The Worker's Party, the radical Peoples' Democracy movement in the late 60's and the exhausted alphabet of splinter groups who present themselves as socialists have all advocated a united 32 county working class as per Connolly's vision but have lacked a clear idea of what lies beyond the fateful day. (And further many of these groups are roughly sympathetic to Marxism, or at least parliamentarian, which creates its own problems).

To much of the Protestant working class, at least historically, the 32 county republic is an extension of the Catholic monoculture advocated by deValera, in which popery will dominate social mores and ergo stunt communities. By and large this attitude is largely correct as this is what Catholicism does however the protesting religions do the very same in their own way and dominate their communities with outmoded mythologies dressed as progress, which in fact merely add oil to the holy flames.

To answer the question this topic poses directly - there is nothing wrong with unification per se but until the lies and treachery of ALL religions are dismantled for all to see, the mythology will continue. The 1932 Outdoor Relief Strike brought workers from all shades together under a common cause, providing the obvious reality that the class can act together for common good when it oversteps the enforced boudaries established by corrupt leadership and suspect clerics who have merely fostered the situation as a foothold for their own social ladders.

Despite their rhetoric the community continues to find common ground. The attempt to force water payments in the North in the last few years created a community-wide reaction and that project was shelved by the State. Given the recent water shortages in the North following the big freeze however, this will no doubt be touted as an excuse to try again to enforce this rip-off on the working class but again it will see a redoubled widespread and cross-community reaction. It is fostering these notions of common ground that might ultimately overturn the differences and create a foundation for a more libertarian focus.

The comparison of the North with Palestine is erroneous, though not entirely. In both situations a territory is under occupation (or sees itself as such) however the expression of that occupation is vastly different in each territory. Palestine is basically an open prison and brutality is common. There are times in the past when this was the case in certain parts of the North, such as South Armagh, however today the occupation is largely economic and somewhat cosmetic.

The association with opaque oppression in Palestine and the presentation of nationalism as a means to overcome is used as a stick to arrouse sympathy for the futile nationalism that desperate romantics continue to convey in the North. There appears to be no clear idea of what lies beyond kicking the oppressor out, and so that vision is short-sighted per se.

The revolutions which swept Europe from 1848 onwards were a reaction against Imperialism, and nationalism became the nom de guerre against the ravages of Empire. But with the subsequent collapse of European empire what was left was a moribund tradition which expressed its reality through 2 World Wars, and continues to wreak havoc.

The dismantling of tradition - nationalism as an emancipatory currency, religion as the cornerstone of moralism - must be exposed so that the idea of a borderless society might not appear to dress itself up in a tricolour.

Nice post.

_LIAM_

Devrim the south has 26 counties and the north 6. You are wrong I am afraid. And admin - flaming removed

(from wiki 'Local Government in Northern Ireland')

"The current pattern of local government in Northern Ireland, with 26 councils, was established in 1973 by the Local Government (Boundaries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 and the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 to replace the previous system established by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898. The system is based on the recommendations of the Macrory Report, of June 1970, which presupposed the continued existence of the Government of Northern Ireland to act as a regional-level authority."

(from wiki 'Local Government in the Republic of Ireland')

"In the Republic of Ireland, local government is structured into two tiers:

* Tier 1 - county councils (29) and their legal equivalent city councils (5)."

slothjabber

_LIAM_

Devrim the south has 26 counties and the north 6. You are wrong I am afraid. And admin - flaming removed

(from wiki 'Local Government in Northern Ireland')

"The current pattern of local government in Northern Ireland, with 26 councils, was established in 1973 by the Local Government (Boundaries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 and the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 to replace the previous system established by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898. The system is based on the recommendations of the Macrory Report, of June 1970, which presupposed the continued existence of the Government of Northern Ireland to act as a regional-level authority."

(from wiki 'Local Government in the Republic of Ireland')

"In the Republic of Ireland, local government is structured into two tiers:

* Tier 1 - county councils (29) and their legal equivalent city councils (5)."

'Councils' and 'Counties' are not the same thing. :confused:
'Northern Ireland' is made up of 6 of the 9 Counties of the Province of Ulster. The Republic of Ireland is made up of the Provinces of Munster, Leinster and Connaught, along with the three Counties of Ulster that do not form part of Northern Ireland. Which adds up to a total of 26 Counties
This is why it is not entirely correct to use 'Northern Ireland' and 'Ulster' interchangeably, dependent upon the context.

Shennanygoat

A 'united Ireland' under a capitalist statist system would not only be oppressive and counter to the interests of the entire Irish working class (as all states are), but would almost certainly be a state which specifically oppressed and discriminated against the Protestant working class.

You mean like the way the current 26 county republic specifically oppresses and discriminates against working class protestants?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_%28psychology%29

But on the 29 "county" thing... If anyone wants to put a bet on Fingal or Dun Laoghaire winning the All-Ireland (football or hurling) in the next ten years, then I'll willingly take your money. Any odds you like. :D

Shennanygoat

A 'united Ireland' under a capitalist statist system would not only be oppressive and counter to the interests of the entire Irish working class (as all states are), but would almost certainly be a state which specifically oppressed and discriminated against the Protestant working class.

It would be interesting to see where exactly you are getting the evidence to support these assertions. Why would a capitalist 32 county state be more "counter to the interests of the entire working class" than a 26 country state (or 6 county state), and why would it discriminate against protestants?

Well, I guess the Anarchist position is self-determination. Obviously we don't want to support Nationalism or Capitalist oppression, but if trends continue and the North's population decides to become a part of the Republic, then it makes sense to support them.

I don't really care about what flag flies over Belfast, but it would be absurd to detach issues in the North from the Troubles, which means that you inevitably have to take some sort of side. I come down on the Nationalist side more often than not because of the composition of classes in the North, but that doesn't mean I'm a Nationalist or Republican.

It's the nature of an Anarchist to have to support the best situation, not the perfect situation. And the choice presented in Northern Ireland is not very good.

The relevant entity here is not the ideaology of the victim but the oppression of the Empire.

The British Empire has stunted and deformed the development and self-determination of the people on the island of Eire. The people on that island have the "right" to unify all of their people to be free of British Imperial control. We must support their right to do that - without (almost) any conditions.

Ireland is not only capitalist but is dominated by a backward Catholic culture that blows smoke in peoples eyes and prevents them from being able to see straight. Women are oppressed as are children. That, however, is irrelevant. The defects of the victim should not be taken into account unless they get so bad that they are like Pol Pot in Cambodia where they are exterminating their own.

There was a rvery good eason that the majority of socialists and communists support the right of self-determination.

Not only is it right. It is also one of the roadblocks to class consciousness that needs to be cleared out of the way.

Alexander Roxwell

Ireland is not only capitalist but is dominated by a backward Catholic culture that blows smoke in peoples eyes and prevents them from being able to see straight. Women are oppressed as are children. That, however, is irrelevant. The defects of the victim should not be taken into account unless they get so bad that they are like Pol Pot in Cambodia where they are exterminating their own.

There was a very good eason that the majority of socialists and communists support the right of self-determination.

Not only is it right. It is also one of the roadblocks to class consciousness that needs to be cleared out of the way.

What a load of patronising bollocks. When was the last time you read about Ireland or actually spoke to an Irish person? It is very obvious that you have never been there.

Catholic culture blowing smoke in peoples eyes! Preventing us from being able to see straight!

You haven't got a fucking clue what you are talking about.

Alexander Roxwell

Ireland is not only capitalist but is dominated by a backward Catholic culture that blows smoke in peoples eyes and prevents them from being able to see straight. Women are oppressed as are children.

Unlike in the UK, where patriarchy was smashed by William of Orange in 1688.

That, however, is irrelevant. The defects of the victim should not be taken into account unless they get so bad that they are like Pol Pot in Cambodia where they are exterminating their own.

Are you serious?

Shields

Well, I guess the Anarchist position is self-determination.

'Self-determination' for nations is a leftist nonsense that has nothing to do with anarchism.
Shields

Obviously we don't want to support Nationalism

Why did you do that in your first paragraph then?
Shields

if trends continue and the North's population decides to become a part of the Republic, then it makes sense to support them.

Why? What does the re-drawing of an artificial boundary have to do with class politics or internationalism? Why should anarchists even get involved with such crude nationalist terms of reference? What you are advocating is just crude populism based on census results. At the moment the majority of people in Northern Ireland favour continued partition of Ireland and maintenance of the Union with Britain. Does that mean it 'makes sense' for anarchists to contingently support the DUP/UUP/TUV.......??
Shields

I come down on the Nationalist side more often than not because of the composition of classes in the North

What do you mean? That there are no poor 'protestants'? That they all live in luxury while the poor taigs keep coal in their baths? Again, with this analysis of the situation, why do you call yourself an anarchist?
Shields

It's the nature of an Anarchist to have to support the best situation, not the perfect situation. And the choice presented in Northern Ireland is not very good.

No its for anarchists (in NI) to argue for something outside the dead-end binary of two competing reactionary nationalisms, ie class politics.
If 'the choice presented in Northern Ireland is not very good', why are you indulging in it?

Alexander Roxwell

There was a rvery good eason that the majority of socialists and communists support the right of self-determination.

Yes, it is that they are leftist, small-nation nationalist idiots.

Alexander Roxwell

It is also one of the roadblocks to class consciousness that needs to be cleared out of the way.

Yes, once TeH BritS are gone (whatever that even means) everything will be fine for the working class.

It worked in Algeria, now a working-class paradise.

Is it as bad as Cambodia? No. Until it's exactly that bad or worse we are bound by the honor code of lefty cheerleading politics to back the Algerian state to the hilt.

Because its all been said before on here

_LIAM_

Alexander Roxwell

Ireland is not only capitalist but is dominated by a backward Catholic culture that blows smoke in peoples eyes and prevents them from being able to see straight. Women are oppressed as are children. That, however, is irrelevant. The defects of the victim should not be taken into account unless they get so bad that they are like Pol Pot in Cambodia where they are exterminating their own.

There was a very good eason that the majority of socialists and communists support the right of self-determination.

Not only is it right. It is also one of the roadblocks to class consciousness that needs to be cleared out of the way.

What a load of patronising bollocks. When was the last time you read about Ireland or actually spoke to an Irish person? It is very obvious that you have never been there.

Catholic culture blowing smoke in peoples eyes! Preventing us from being able to see straight!

You haven't got a fucking clue what you are talking about.

I agree with you on this LIAM, patronising stuff.

_LIAM_

Shennanygoat

what exists now in the broad Republican movement is basically Catholic nationalism, which is every bit as non-progressive as they would make out the loyalist movement to be.

To say that the majority of republicans are as reationary as loyalists is stretching the facts a bit too far I would say.

Yes Irish republicanism is a nationalist movement but it has always had within its ranks many who would be far left leaning. This is not to suggest that republicanism is in itself progressive. I am just pointing out that there is more opportunity to engage in arguments about the nature of capitalist society with some republicans whereas loyalists tend to be much more reactionary and tied to the notion of the nation state.

Don't get me wrong as I consider the replublican movements (both the parliamentary and the dissident ones) to be a major obstacle to the development of real class based politics.

I agree to a degree, and in that statement I meant the Republican movement as a whole, not individual republicans - although in saying that despite a lot of republicans considering themselves leftie or left-leaning, there's also many who are right-wing, reactionary, bigoted and racist scumbags!

And many who claim they are left-wing and are not sectarian because they believe that sectarianism is what prods do at some sort of innate level, that defence of a reationary and devisive Irish nationalism is progressive while defence of a reactionary and devisive British nationalism is reactionary. The left-leaning nationalist of the republican movement simply believes they aren't sectarian - the fact of the matter is they are. Both in their attitude to those who hold with the conflicting nationalism in Ireland and by their adoption of their own 'legitimate' nationalism. Nationalism in general is divisive and reactionary by the very nature of the false choices and allegiences it forces on working class people - that some of these working class people still give a shit about class issues is not surprising because, materially they still recognise their class interests to some extent.

And I don't agree that loyalists are more tied to the notion of the nation state than republicans - each lot of politics, no matter how lefty, is based ultimately on the sanctity of one nation state over the other. Why would this not be the case when so many lefties who are not republicans are still tied to the notion of the nation state?

If its no longer 32 counties, please dont inform these guys they have the wrong end of the stick.
http://www.32 csm.info/index.html

Admin - Link broken. Please don't link to hostile sites.

october_lost

If its no longer 32 counties, please dont inform these guys they have the wrong end of the stick.

Interesting article on there on republicanism and anti-fascism by the organisation who had Italian fash in their company during the Ardoyne riots. Also the article is a bit of a whitewash of nazi-repulican links from Russell to Frank Ryan himself (collaborated with the Nazis despite his fighting fascism in Spain) and of course it underplays (which is an understatement) the fact that more Irish republicans fought for Franco than against him while basically saying "fascism - thats the prods that is!".

Deezer

october_lost

If its no longer 32 counties, please dont inform these guys they have the wrong end of the stick.

Interesting article on there on republicanism and anti-fascism by the organisation who had Italian fash in their company during the Ardoyne riots. .

Got any links to that? Sounds pretty odd. Would think the fash would stick with their traditional loyalists pals?

gypsytimetraveller

Deezer

october_lost

If its no longer 32 counties, please dont inform these guys they have the wrong end of the stick.

Interesting article on there on republicanism and anti-fascism by the organisation who had Italian fash in their company during the Ardoyne riots. .

Got any links to that? Sounds pretty odd. Would think the fash would stick with their traditional loyalists pals?

Italian Fascists are not the traditional friends of loyalists and have pretty consistently supported a 32 county united Ireland. There are few if any links to this as its pretty deliberately been kept hush even by other republican groups who know about it.

I'd agree with Deezer on this one. When I was in Poland I saw massive pieces of graffiti painted in different places which basically consisted of a Celtic Cross with 'IRA' written on one side and 'ETA' written on the others (internationalist fascism?).. the impression that I get is that fascists from predominantly Catholic countries tend to support the IRA/republicans as 'nationalist Catholic freedom-fighters'..

Funnily enough, whenever I've brought this up with pro-republican anarchists/lefties in the UK, they always laughed and thought of the European fascists as being a bit politically confused. Never really questioned whether it was more inconsistant for anti-statist internationalists to support republicanism than it was for Catholic nationalists.. meh..

I continue to be amazed at how seemingly insensitive most of the people who post on this website appear to be on the subject of Empire and its victims. Would you have supported the Haitian revolt against French rule in Haiti back in the early 1800s? Or would you have smugly said, oh well, Toussiant is just a nationalist who will not be able to (even if he knew what it was) bring the workers to power so he is just another capitalist pig. Would you have supported any "nativist" revolts against the Empire? India? the United States? How about the revolt of the Spanish colonies in Latin America?

Why did you do that in your first paragraph then?

My bad. In retrospect, I wrote that pretty badly.

Why? What does the re-drawing of an artificial boundary have to do with class politics or internationalism? Why should anarchists even get involved with such crude nationalist terms of reference? What you are advocating is just crude populism based on census results. At the moment the majority of people in Northern Ireland favour continued partition of Ireland and maintenance of the Union with Britain. Does that mean it 'makes sense' for anarchists to contingently support the DUP/UUP/TUV.......??

If you want to live in a world where the Nationalist debate is irrelevant to class politics in Northern Ireland, fine. But it has no relevance to reality. Everything in Northern Ireland is affected by ethnic politics. I don't like it, just like I don't like the fact that ethnic politics affects everything in Palestine. But I can't just ignore it. I'm not saying Anarchists should get involved in Nationalism, but we have to recognize its role in society if we're going to be effective.

What do you mean? That there are no poor 'protestants'? That they all live in luxury while the poor taigs keep coal in their baths? Again, with this analysis of the situation, why do you call yourself an anarchist?

I didn't say anything like that.

No its for anarchists (in NI) to argue for something outside the dead-end binary of two competing reactionary nationalisms, ie class politics.
If 'the choice presented in Northern Ireland is not very good', why are you indulging in it?

I just don't think its realistic to move forward without indulging in it. I'd like to ignore it, but I haven't heard a compelling case made that we can just ignore it and still be successful. If you want to make that case, I'd be really glad to change my mind.

gypsytimetraveller

Deezer

october_lost

If its no longer 32 counties, please dont inform these guys they have the wrong end of the stick.

Interesting article on there on republicanism and anti-fascism by the organisation who had Italian fash in their company during the Ardoyne riots. .

Got any links to that? Sounds pretty odd. Would think the fash would stick with their traditional loyalists pals?

yeah, like others have said most international fascists support Irish republicanism.

I remember being quite confused by this when I was a child discussing Ireland with the first Italian fascist I knew, who had extremely bizarre views. He believed, for example that Catholics were a majority of the Northern Ireland population, and me saying otherwise was due to lies in the media.

Shields

No its for anarchists (in NI) to argue for something outside the dead-end binary of two competing reactionary nationalisms, ie class politics.
If 'the choice presented in Northern Ireland is not very good', why are you indulging in it?

I just don't think its realistic to move forward without indulging in it. I'd like to ignore it, but I haven't heard a compelling case made that we can just ignore it and still be successful. If you want to make that case, I'd be really glad to change my mind.

a relevant question: Who did you support in the Falklands war?

Deezer

gypsytimetraveller

Deezer

october_lost

If its no longer 32 counties, please dont inform these guys they have the wrong end of the stick.

Interesting article on there on republicanism and anti-fascism by the organisation who had Italian fash in their company during the Ardoyne riots. .

Got any links to that? Sounds pretty odd. Would think the fash would stick with their traditional loyalists pals?

Italian Fascists are not the traditional friends of loyalists and have pretty consistently supported a 32 county united Ireland. There are few if any links to this as its pretty deliberately been kept hush even by other republican groups who know about it.

Would love to see an article written about it. Weeler? You got anything on this? Pretty interesting stuff, i guess I thought that british and italian fascists would hold similar views.

Alexander Roxwell

I continue to be amazed at how seemingly insensitive most of the people who post on this website appear to be on the subject of Empire and its victims. Would you have supported the Haitian revolt against French rule in Haiti back in the early 1800s? Or would you have smugly said, oh well, Toussiant is just a nationalist who will not be able to (even if he knew what it was) bring the workers to power so he is just another capitalist pig. Would you have supported any "nativist" revolts against the Empire? India? the United States? How about the revolt of the Spanish colonies in Latin America?

I continue to be amazed at the attempts by many on the left to use historic examples that do not actually fit with the situation in the north of Ireland as if they are unquestionably transferable. Northern Ireland has not only got victims of 'Empire' but numerous victims of the various sectarian and nationalist factions and is hopefully slowly emerging from a period of entrenched sectarianism into one in which it will begin to be easier to organise on class issues. The re-drawing of a border within the confines of the EU will not represent a blow to 'Empire' by the 'oppressed' nation. Protestant and Catholic are oppressed as workers and by the state and will continue to be oppressed as workers and by the state no matter where we find our lines on the map drawn, no matter what set of parliamentary gangsters are in charge in Dublin, Westminster or Stormont. As working class people it is in our interests to oppose all states and all those factions who would seek to replace the current state/s with one with different borders.

Deezer

I continue to be amazed at the attempts by many on the left to use historic examples that do not actually fit with the situation in the north of Ireland as if they are unquestionably transferable.

Does this mean that you would have supported the independence movement in Haiti, the independence movement in the 13 colonies, the Latin American Independence movement but that you see a big difference between them and the island of Eire?

What would that difference be?

Would you support the Resistance Movements in Yugoslavia and France against the Nazis during World War II?

If I understand you correctly your reason for not supporting the independence of the island of Eire from the British Empire is that, and I quote:

Deezer

As working class people it is in our interests to oppose all states and all those factions who would seek to replace the current state/s with one with different borders.

As I understand it, this would also cover the Haitian Independence movement, the independence of the 13 colonies from British rule, the latin American Independence Movement, the Resistance Movement in France, and the Resistance Movement in Yugoslavia.

Am I misunderstanding something? What would that be?

roxwell, trying to trick people into answering your histrionic loaded questions shows that you don't really want to discuss anything.

Alexander Roxwell

What would that difference be?

Am I misunderstanding something? What would that be?

Do you actually know anything at all about the political situation here?

In the north of Ireland there is a minority of people who historically have identified as Irish nationalists and wish to be part of a united 32 country capitalist Ireland. There is a majority who have seen themselves as British nationalists and wish to remain part of a capitalist UK. The vast majority on both sides no longer support the use of violence to reach their stated aims yet they maintain a sectarian divide. They have agreed to exist side by side but apart.

There are a few idiots still promoting sectarian violence but they have no influence at all.

Yes historically many of us on the left have tended to side with the irish reunification argument however this is not the driving factor in class struggle politics in Ireland, either north or south. Jobs, the recession, bank bail outs, cuts in public services are what matter.

So how does your support for a unified "Eire" (the name is Ireland by the way) translate into real political action? Do you support the majority nationalist party Sinn Fein, who are presiding over cuts in the NHS and public services as part of the northern ireland government. Or do you support the dissident splinter groups who are are little more than apolitical sectarian bigots and offer nothing but a return to murder and division in our class?

It is all very well talking about how people must support anti imperialism but please explain how that support should be actively carried out.

Admin edit - Liam, this is a no flaming forum. If you flame again, you will recieve a temporary ban.

Liam

It is all very well talking about how people must support anti imperialism but please explain how that support should be actively carried out.

Not only this, but they should also explain what the working class in said nations would actually gain from 'national liberation'.. what would a united Ireland actually give to the Catholic working class beyond some vague idea of having 'their land' 'back'?

I support the struggles of people who are fighting against an imperialist overlord who is preventing the people of an occupied land from determining their own future. I am trying to understand why people, such as yourselves, evidently do not. You never seem to want to actually explain your position - you throw it back on me to defend mine, you call me names and say that you are for the working class and not for the bourgeoisie and so on but you never actually give me an argument. The reason I throw out other examples is because I think these other examples are more clearly examples where you would be unable to remain nuetral in the face of an Empire. You think I am "cheating" when I do that somehow and you never answer me.

Your position makes no sense to me. I understand many positions that I do not agree with but I cannot understand your opposition to the right of nations to self determination. How can I but draw very unflattering conclusions about your reasoning abilities?

Come on. You can't be that obtuse.

Ed

Liam

It is all very well talking about how people must support anti imperialism but please explain how that support should be actively carried out.

Not only this, but they should also explain what the working class in said nations would actually gain from 'national liberation'.. what would a united Ireland actually give to the Catholic working class beyond some vague idea of having 'their land' 'back'?

Rodwell the quote above is basically the crux of the argument.

Alexander Roxwell

I support the struggles of people who are fighting against an imperialist overlord who is preventing the people of an occupied land from determining their own future.

_LIAM_

It is all very well talking about how people must support anti imperialism but please explain how that support should be actively carried out.

gypsytimetraveller

Rodwell the quote above is basically the crux of the argument.

This could be an interesting and enlightening discussion, given some comradely manners from all parties and a desire to understand both positions (rather than mere condemnation), and thus to allow others to be able support one or the other position.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't fully understand either position. I think I'm inclined to support _LIAM_, gypsytimetraveller and others' view, that 'national liberation' is a dead end for workers.

But I have some sympathy for Alexander Roxwell's view that 'anti-imperialism' is to be admired (if not supported?). 'National Liberation' may be a dead end eventually, but doesn't it have some real, if short-lived, advantages to the newly 'free' nation? Do we need to weigh up the positives and negatives to try to form a balanced judgement of the issue. To be clear, I'm inclined to think that there are more negatives to 'national liberation', but I'm keen to form an informed opinion.

Perhaps for some this debate is a tired rehash of debates they've had years ago, and they are sick and tired of going over old ground, but there are always people new to these issues on this site, so could someone clearly explain both positions' strength and weaknesses, in a spirit of Communist friendship. Even in a Communist society, we are going to have differences, and we should now be starting to show that we can have disagreements without resorting to abuse.

In a position of power, it's a short step from 'abuse' to 'purges'.

Yes there are times when as anarchists we will side with those in national liberation movements against a foreign ruling class. I have no problem with this when it benefits the overall direction of class struggle.

What I am asking Alexander Roxwell is how that support, that he says we must give in Ireland, should be expressed. Do you support the parliamentary Sinn Fein party, who are part of the government of Northern Ireland? Or do you support the handful of dissident republicans who have no support what so ever within any section of the Irish working class north or south?

This quote by you really shows that you have no notion of real political life here

Alexander Roxwell

I support the struggles of people who are fighting against an imperialist overlord who is preventing the people of an occupied land from determining their own future

Who exactly do you see fighting against an imperialist overlord (sounds like something from Star Wars) in Ireland? It isn't happening.

There is no national liberation movement in Ireland. I know that this doesn't fit very well with the wet dream of lefties outside Ireland but it is a fact.

No one on the left in Ireland sees the question of the border as being the major issue facing the Irlsh working class. Are they all wrong and you are right? Do you know better than the Irish working class?

It is evident from your posts that you have a very limited knowledge of the current political situation in Ireland but from that limited knowledge could you answer something? When you say you support the struggle against "imperialist overlords" in Ireland, who is it that you are siding with in that struggle? Who do you see as being engaged in this noble crusade against a foreign enemy?

_LIAM_

Yes there are times when as anarchists we will side with those in national liberation movements against a foreign ruling class. I have no problem with this when it benefits the overall direction of class struggle.

_LIAM_, does this mean that you are not in principle against siding with national liberation movements, but you make your decision based on the prevailing political circumstances in a particular struggle?

So, in Ireland, you currently oppose the 'national struggle' because, at this time, it not only has nothing to offer workers on the island of Ireland, but it is actually detrimental for those workers? But, at other times in the past, you can think of periods where you would have supported the 'national struggle'? Or perhaps, in the case of Ireland itself, you don't think there were any periods where you would have supported the struggle, but nervertheless you can think of other historical situations where support for a NLF was justified? Or, to be clear, do you totally oppose any national struggles in the past?

To illustrate you position, could you give an historical example of, for example, a period in Irish history when you would have given support, or, on a wider note, an example of any national struggle in the last 200 years?

I'm not trying to trap you with these questions; I'm not sure myself, and as I said earlier I feel closer to the anti-NLF position, and as far as Ireland itself goes, in today's situation I totally support your position, and think Alexander Roxwell is mistaken, in this particular case, at least.

It's probably clear that this discussion is, for me, not really about Ireland, but about the wider view of a Communist policy on 'national liberation', both today and in the past, which may be different policies (eg. it could be argued that once NL was progressive, but now it isn't).

Latin American independence was actually catalysed by the emergence of a local, Spanish-born elite who resented their profits going back to the motherland. The so called independence "hero", Bolívar, was a buddy of Napoleon's - hence his dislike of Spain. He was very successful in enlisting black slaves and indigenous people to fight his wars with carrot-esque reforms promised (the abolition of slavery for example), only for them to be painted out of history by the portrait artists. Latin America today is still a complex matrix of racial and class-based inequalities, with a rough colour line indicating class and access to resources.

Caiman del Barrio

Latin American independence was actually catalysed by the emergence of a local, Spanish-born elite who resented their profits going back to the motherland.

In the context of our discussion, I suppose the next question is: 'do you historically support "Latin American independence", from the point of view of the proletariat?

In other words, should the 'black slaves and indigenous people', who fought Bolivar's wars for his class's profits in the name of their 'national independence', have been supported in their struggle, or should have just been informed of the class nature of their society and been left to discover the 'truth' of Bolivar's and our conflicting positions for themselves? And only given real aid (politicial or military, as opposed to ideological advice) when they declared themselves in favour of the class war?

If we were faced with this issue today, I think Alexander Roxwell would say give 'support' against the stronger capitalist imperialist powers, to help weaken them, and I can see why this might be persuasive.

Me? I'm still not sure.

Well, as always, this whole notion of 'support' is problematic. The international proletariat is not a football team, so your abstract, moral 'support' is really worthless outside of the chattering classes.

CdB

Well, as always, this whole notion of 'support' is problematic. The international proletariat is not a football team, so your abstract, moral 'support' is really worthless outside of the chattering classes.

Is this a reply to me, CdB?

Alexander Roxwell

I support the struggles of people who are fighting against an imperialist overlord who is preventing the people of an occupied land from determining their own future.

well some decades ago 26/32 of the people of ireland (26/32 of the administrative units, to be precise) fought off their imperialist overlords, and see how that turned out?

would you say these people have been able to determine their own presents, never mind their own futures? is it better if the overlords speak with a brogue?

Caiman del Barrio

Latin American independence was actually catalysed by the emergence of a local, Spanish-born elite who resented their profits going back to the motherland. The so called independence "hero", Bolívar, was a buddy of Napoleon's - hence his dislike of Spain. He was very successful in enlisting black slaves and indigenous people to fight his wars with carrot-esque reforms promised (the abolition of slavery for example), only for them to be painted out of history by the portrait artists. Latin America today is still a complex matrix of racial and class-based inequalities, with a rough colour line indicating class and access to resources.

Agreed.

Latin America today is still a complex matrix of racial and class-based inequalities, with a rough colour line indicating class and access to resources. (my bolding)

This is a very interesting insight.

Another thing is that nationalist ideology is very strong in Latin America, but not the secessionist variety. It is usually expressed in "anti-imperialist" (which mostly means going against the policy of the USA) discourse. I guess the US backing of brutal military coups and regimes all over the place had something to do with that.

gypsytimetraveller

Deezer

gypsytimetraveller

Deezer

october_lost

If its no longer 32 counties, please dont inform these guys they have the wrong end of the stick.

Interesting article on there on republicanism and anti-fascism by the organisation who had Italian fash in their company during the Ardoyne riots. .

Got any links to that? Sounds pretty odd. Would think the fash would stick with their traditional loyalists pals?

Italian Fascists are not the traditional friends of loyalists and have pretty consistently supported a 32 county united Ireland. There are few if any links to this as its pretty deliberately been kept hush even by other republican groups who know about it.

Would love to see an article written about it. Weeler? You got anything on this? Pretty interesting stuff, i guess I thought that british and italian fascists would hold similar views.

Pretty sure there was some stuff in Leveller summer 2009, but not much substantial, like Deezer says, largely downplayed by those with an interest in defending irish nationalism.
It was worth noting that the same year there had been a few attacks on Lithuanians round The Falls (republican West Belfast) that didn't get nearly the same level of criticism when compared to ones DONE BY THEM THERE BIGOT PRODS.

Your position makes no sense to me. I understand many positions that I do not agree with but I cannot understand your opposition to the right of nations to self determination.

What does a self-determining nation look like? Can you point to any?

Django

Your position makes no sense to me. I understand many positions that I do not agree with but I cannot understand your opposition to the right of nations to self determination.

What does a self-determining nation look like? Can you point to any?

precisely. it's a liberal fantasy incorporated via bolshevism into 'revolutionary' politics that utterly fails to grasp the actual dynamics of the state system.

Margeret Thatcher supported the Falklands islanders "right of self-determination".

I had a problem with the orthodoxy on nationalism when I first came to libcom but I think any illusions I had were dealt with on a thread about insurgency/islamic militants in Iraq.

Third worldism or socialism is a good piece to start from

Trotskyist support for movements of national liberation, however ~ is thus support for another social group ... and not for the working class or peasantry. Trotskyists present their support for the leadership of various national liberation movements as a 'tactic' which will allow them to gain control of the movement. In their mythology, the leaderships of such movements are incapable of carrying out the struggle for national independence. As we have seen, this is nonsense, pure and simple: the Chinese, Cuban or North Vietnamese bureaucracies went 'all the way' in expropriating western capitalists without an ounce of help from any of the Fourth Internationals.

Lenin's theory of imperialism, written in 1916, is usually quoted by all the trad left groups to sanction their support for national liberation. The theory holds that a Western 'labour aristocracy' has been created out of super-profits squeezed out of colonial countries. This is a bourgeois concept because it places national factors above class analysis....

Nationalism and class struggle are irreconcilably opposed. A nation is a bourgeois reality: it is capitalism with all its exploitation and alienation, parcelled out in a single geographical unit. It doesn't matter whether the nation is 'small, 'colonial', 'semi-colonial' or 'non-imperialist'. All nationalisms are reactionary because they inevitably clash with class consciousness and poison it with chauvinism and racialism.

The nationalist sentiment in the advanced countries is reactionary, not only because it facilitates the plundering of the colonial workers and peasants, but because it is a form of false consciousness which ideologically binds the western workers to 'their' ruling classes. Similarly, the 'nationalism of the oppressed' is reactionary because it facilitates class collaboration between the colonial workers and peasants and the 'anti-imperialist' nascent bureaucracies.

october_lost

I had a problem with the orthodoxy on nationalism when I first came to libcom but I think any illusions I had were dealt with on a thread about insurgency/islamic militants in Iraq.

Third worldism or socialism is a good piece to start from

Thanks for the link, october_lost. I thought the following passages were particularly enlightening:

Third worldism or socialism

Higher consumption levels and welfare programmes may temporarily be established by these regimes. Those who can see no further than economistic steps to 'socialism' usually quote this to explain why Castro is 'better' than Batista or Mao 'preferable' to Chiang. Without dealing with the reactionary implications of such reformism at a national level, let's see how the argument works internationally. Castro supported the 1968 Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia, Ho Chi Minh defended the Russian crushing of the Hungarian revolution of 1956 and Mao supported Yahya Khan's genocide in Bangladesh. Thus what is 'gained' at home is lost abroad, in the form of heaps of corpses and massive political demoralisation.

Third worldism or socialism

Another equally important dimension of national liberation struggles is ignored by the trad left. It is the question of working class and peasant democracy and of the revolutionary self-activity of the masses. National liberation will always repress such autonomous working class activities because the bourgeois goals of national liberation (i.e. nation-building) are opposed - in class terms - to the historical interests of working people (i.e. the liberation of humanity). It thus becomes clear why all the leaderships of national liberation movements attempt to control, from above, any initiative of the masses, and prescribe for them only the politics of nationalism. To do this it is necessary actually to terrorise the working masses (Ben Bella's FLN massacred dozens of Algerian workers during the Algerian war of 'independence', Ho's Viet Mihn helped the British and French to crush the Saigon Workers' Commune of 1945 and later assassinated dozens of Trotskyists; Guevara publicly attacked the Cuban Trotskyists and Castro's attacks against them in 1966 sealed their fate even as reformists of the Castroite ruling class.)

Third worldism or socialism

It is often claimed that a distinction must be made between the reactionary and bureaucratic leaderships of national liberation struggles and the masses of people involved in such struggles. Their objectives are said to be different. We believe this distinction seldom to be valid. The foreigner is usually hated as a foreigner, not as an exploiter, because he belongs to a different culture, not because he extracts surplus value. This prepares the way for local exploiters to step into the shoes of the foreign ones.

Third worldism or socialism

In practice all that revolutionaries can currently do in the Third World is to avoid compromise on the cardinal issue: namely that working people have no 'fatherland' and that for socialists the main enemy is always in one's own country...They can point out that their own societies are divided into classes and that these classes have mutually incompatible interests, just like the classes in the 'foreign' societies that oppress them.

I think Alexander Roxwell would consider the policy recommendations, to give only political advice, to be too passive, but I'm keen to also hear his opinion.

I am not sure what to make of the various posts, some of which were in response to my last post, and some not. Altho I have read alot over the years (I am 62 and have been in and around the hard left since 1968) my perspective has never been as a devoted ideologue of this or that sect (altho I have been in a few very briefly). When someone launches into a broadside against "Trotskyists" or "Maoists" or "anarchists" I may agree with this or that point but find it rather uninteresting and often of no value at all. I find the October_lost post to be like that. I do not know whether October_lost is right or wrong about "Trotskyists" but it has nothing to do with my position.

Workers will only be moved into a revolutionary frame of mind by stress. So long as their world is humming along in a reasonably comfortable way they will swallow the prevailing excrement that spins out to them from the television set. Altho nearly all of that stress is indeed ultimately caused by the underlying class exploitation what moves people to action is not the "underlying cause" but "what hits you first." In advanced capitalist nations it will more likely be more direct - issues at work or as a result of a lack of work or something like that. In an area of the globe where the little group that you identify with is put down or stomped on by another little group that has managed to curry more favor with the ruling class you are going to identify with those who are organizing to defend your little group and against the other group. This can, and often does, turn ugly and can even evolve into something really reactionary - like a race war. But people are going to fight back when they are oppressed by a more powerful or more connected group whether we approve of it or not. Communists cannot stand aside and lecture the oppressed that the fight they are fighting is wrong when it is self-defense. That just makes it more likely that it will turn reactionary. People come into the fight bringing their baggage with them. Most people do not enter their first fight as “communists” or “anarchists.” We have to meet them where they go to fight the good fight.

The Palestinians are defending their lives against annihilation. The Vietnamese were defending their culture and their way of life from the foreign overlord that was turning their country into a whorehouse. The Chinese were defending their land and their lives from the Japanese invaders. The Native American "Indians" were defending their hunting grounds from invaders who were razing the forest and killing off their game. The people in the French Resistance were defending their lives against Nazi butchers who wanted to annihilate them. It just isn't much of an argument to tell someone whose entire family was exterminated by Nazi butchers that Charles DeGaulle is a "bourgeois" just the same as is Adolf Hitler. It just doesn't fly.

It is true that most members of the Ku Klux Klan are just workers struggling to get by in the world the way they found it just the same as the Black people that they just lynched. But we have to take sides. Just sitting there telling "both sides" that they ought to "unite and fight the capitalists” is much worse than naïve. It is criminal negligence.

I agree that the "right of national self determination" is not absolute. It has to balance off against what else it is. I would not have supported Pol Pot's "Cambodian" right of self determination against the Vietnamese. I do not support "Tibet." I do not advocate that people struggle for the "right of self-determination" if they have no interest in doing so.

But to say that "the 'nationalism of the oppressed' is reactionary because it facilitates class collaboration between the colonial workers and peasants and the 'anti-imperialist' nascent bureaucracies" is just flat-out-nonsense.

I see what you did there. You equated being opposed to racism to being for national liberation.

Alexander Roxwell

Communists cannot stand aside and lecture the oppressed that the fight they are fighting is wrong when it is self-defense. That just makes it more likely that it will turn reactionary. People come into the fight bringing their baggage with them. Most people do not enter their first fight as “communists” or “anarchists.” We have to meet them where they go to fight the good fight.

Well, Alexander, perhaps the key here is your use of the term 'self-defense'. What is the 'self' that is being 'defended'? If that self is 'proletarian', then they are Communists already, so they are 'entering the fight' from a position we can actively support.

But if the 'self' is as a 'national' sub-group versus another 'national' sub-group, perhaps disagreeing about a political aim but still on the 'national terrain' (ie. both 'sides' contain various classes), then surely we should 'stand aside'?

If the 'self' is about 'individuals' being 'oppressed', then that is a moral, liberal position, which might be laudable in many ways, but it is nothing to do with class struggle.

So, I suppose I disagree with you when you say, "We have to meet them where they go to fight the good fight". For us Communists, unless the fight is a 'class conscious fight', not an ill-defined, caring-liberal 'good fight' (ie, in the current world, also a 'national fight'), then we should do no more than propagandise amongst the proletarians engaged in those 'national' struggles, until they themselves develop a class perspective.

Alexander Roxwell

But to say that "the 'nationalism of the oppressed' is reactionary because it facilitates class collaboration between the colonial workers and peasants and the 'anti-imperialist' nascent bureaucracies" is just flat-out-nonsense.

Is it nonsense? 'Nationalism' (of oppressed or otherwise) does 'facilitate class collaboration'.

And as the article I quoted makes clear, in the longer run, this does more damage to workers than it provides any temporary gains, especially if 'workers' is defined internationally, not just domestically in the 'nation' in question.

Anyway, thanks for your considered response, Alexander. Perhaps you could provide examples where you think I am wrong. For example, are Cuban workers now under Castro better off for having better health care than under Batista, and does this outweigh lack of political rights as workers to organise, and thus a greater impediment to developing 'class consciousness'? Healthy bodies now, but even weaker minds than under Batista?

It's a judgement, not cut and dried.

Juan Conatz

I see what you did there. You equated being opposed to racism to being for national liberation.

Yes. In a way that is exactly what I did. Do you disagree? Would you have abstained from supporting the “women’s suffrage” movement even tho the “prize” was merely the right to vote for one bourgeois candidate or another? Even closer to home – would you have abstained from supporting that part of the civil rights movement in the U.S. South that was fighting for the right of Black people to vote – again – for one bourgeois candidate or another?

LBird

…if the 'self' is as a 'national' sub-group versus another 'national' sub-group, perhaps disagreeing about a political aim but still on the 'national terrain' (ie. both 'sides' contain various classes), then surely we should 'stand aside'?

If the 'self' is about 'individuals' being 'oppressed', then that is a moral, liberal position, which might be laudable in many ways, but it is nothing to do with class struggle.

The “self” might be a neighborhood or an ethnic group or a stratum of people, such as youth or elderly people - or it might be an entire national group - If this group feels oppressed and is struggling to defend itself do you think it is more likely or less likely to come under the influence of “alien class interests” if communists stand aside or they get in there and try to lead the fight as a working class fight?

It seems to me that you are demanding that the workers already have class consciousness as a prerequisite for you to support their struggle rather than actually getting in there and struggling for your perspective. Is this so?

I do not support a “popular front” of various classes but that does not mean that I will not join in a struggle that has the possibility of becoming a bourgeois-led popular front – or even one that is indeed right now a bourgeois-led popular front. Is that your idea of being opposed to “the popular front”?

LBird

…For us Communists, unless the fight is a 'class conscious fight', not an ill-defined, caring-liberal 'good fight' (ie, in the current world, also a 'national fight'), then we should do no more than propagandise amongst the proletarians engaged in those 'national' struggles, until they themselves develop a class perspective.

Again this sounds to me like you are going to wait until the movement becomes class conscious without your intervention or just from your advice from the periphery. Is this so?

LBird

… are Cuban workers now under Castro better off for having better health care than under Batista, and does this outweigh lack of political rights as workers to organise, and thus a greater impediment to developing 'class consciousness'? Healthy bodies now, but even weaker minds than under Batista?

I would bet that a Cuban worker is far better off under the Castro than he would be under Batista. I am not at all sure what you are saying but it sounds an awful lot like you are saying that because the Cuban worker is healthier under Castro than he would be under Batista she or he is more content and because he or she is more content she or he is less class conscious. If that is what you are saying then it would seem you are hoping that the workers get no relief at all but are beaten and whipped until they revolt and that anyone who grants them any relief at all is some kind of a reactionary. Surely that cannot be so.

Alexander Roxwell what a load of pie in the sky wishy washy nonsense! Bleating on about some theoretical sitution is no way to address real concrete political issues.

In the here and now how do you think support for "national self determination" in Ireland take place. Should we be giving practical support to Sinn Fein election campaigns? Should we not oppose government cuts because Sinn Fein are part of that government? Or should we be supporting one of the dissident republican sects?

Stop hiding behind rhetoric and put your political outlook in the context of what practical action should come from your stance.

Thanks again, Alexander, for your attempt to clarify both your and my ideas. It is probably obvious that, in the past, I have been influenced by Leninist/Trotskyist ideas about national self-determination. But since I’ve been reading LibCom, I’ve started to question the position that you are arguing for. I’m trying to put the case against, but I’m not sure if I’m being successful or not. Perhaps some of the other posters will correct any mistakes I make in trying to do this. Well, here goes…

AR

The “self” might be a neighborhood or an ethnic group or a stratum of people, such as youth or elderly people - or it might be an entire national group - If this group feels oppressed and is struggling to defend itself do you think it is more likely or less likely to come under the influence of “alien class interests” if communists stand aside or they get in there and try to lead the fight as a working class fight?

It seems to me that you are demanding that the workers already have class consciousness as a prerequisite for you to support their struggle rather than actually getting in there and struggling for your perspective. Is this so?

I do not support a “popular front” of various classes but that does not mean that I will not join in a struggle that has the possibility of becoming a bourgeois-led popular front – or even one that is indeed right now a bourgeois-led popular front. Is that your idea of being opposed to “the popular front”?

Surely we have to ask questions about the natures of the ‘group’, of its ‘oppression’, of its methods of ‘struggle’ and of the ‘influences’ which it is already under? To try to judge whether ‘getting in there and struggling’ is the correct route to take, in any particular instance? This is where I think _LIAM_ has a strong point, that the concrete circumstances of an existing struggle have to be assessed, in this case Northern Ireland.

We have to make our judgement from a class perspective, not from a vague, liberal feeling of support for those struggling against oppression. If the struggling group has no concept of class (it bases itself on age, ethnicity, gender, nation, taxpaying, etc.), sees its oppression as unrelated to class exploitation (the problem being young thugs, whites, men, the US, government, etc.), uses methods inimical to workers’ organisation and self-confidence (charismatic leader, terrorism, secret cabals, cells, representative democracy, writing to MPs, passive A to B marches, etc.), all of which problems are driven by ‘alien class interests’ (bourgeois ideas of individuality, nation, liberation, oppression, etc.) then perhaps we need to tread warily. Simply opposing oppression can get us into deep water in the future, when we could, in the best scenario, have just aligned ourselves with a successive oppressor (Castro?) and thus turned people away from our ideas in the future, or in the worst scenario, actually have helped to build a movement which then turns on us and physically destroys us (Bolshevism?).

I think this means, yes, we should avoid joining struggles that are not, from the start, revolutionary and class conscious, in some way at least. Clearly, some Communist workers organisations may have different politics, but at least there is a basis for us to argue for Libertarian Communism within a class conscious group.

AR

Again this sounds to me like you are going to wait until the movement becomes class conscious without your intervention or just from your advice from the periphery. Is this so?

I suppose again, yes, this is the logic of my position, as it stands. Advice from the periphery of their current organisation, from a different class conscious movement which is also struggling. Periphery meaning separate organisation, not passivity.

AR

I would bet that a Cuban worker is far better off under the Castro than he would be under Batista. I am not at all sure what you are saying but it sounds an awful lot like you are saying that because the Cuban worker is healthier under Castro than he would be under Batista she or he is more content and because he or she is more content she or he is less class conscious. If that is what you are saying then it would seem you are hoping that the workers get no relief at all but are beaten and whipped until they revolt and that anyone who grants them any relief at all is some kind of a reactionary. Surely that cannot be so.

No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that, rather than joining Castro and Guevara’s military campaign, we should point out the shortcomings of Cuban nationalism, military insurrection, state control, the concept of the Foco, and how their interests as workers are damaged by these ideas. Let the workers of Cuba choose between: Batista (no health, no freedom), Castro (health, no freedom) and Libertarian Communism (health and freedom). We should only advise the third option.

To bring this back to Ireland, I think that supporting Irish Nationalism is the same as supporting Orange Separatism. Neither are class answers, both confuse workers, although either can have some superficial attraction and short-term gains for workers, just like Cuba. And as the others have asked, you need to state what actions you would actually take in support of Irish Nationalism.

I’m keen to see what you make of this, Alexander!

Even tho I do find Tojiah's tone and demeanor very offensive I do think he has one good point - and that is that I should open my own thread on the subject of the right of nations to self-determination. I do find it interesting to note - however - that even as he accuses me of being a complete ignoramus about Ireland most of the responses to my posts here do not really talk specifically about why the Irish national question Ireland is in the past tense.

I am going to have to wait (it is 8:53 here and the place closes at 9:00 p.m. I do not have a home computer) to respond to L Bird more substantial comments. I will do that when I open up a new site.

from "tripoli"

wojtek

At risk of derailing this thread further

Alexander Rodwell wrote:
I persist in defending the right of nations to self determination just can't figure out why I find their "arguments" against it so lame brain.

Well in the thread 'Irish unification (26+6=1) - what's wrong with it?' ( http://libcom.org/forums/ireland/irish-unification-2661-whats-wrong-it-31122010 ), you failed to explain what benefits a united Ireland would actually bring to the Catholic working class beyond some vague idea of having 'their land' 'back' and also how support for the Irish national liberation should be actively carried out; by supporting the parliamentary party Sinn Fein, who were at the time (and still are?) presiding over cuts in the NHS and public services as part of the northern ireland government, or by supporting the dissident splinter groups who according to -LIAM- are 'little more than apolitical sectarian bigots and offer nothing but a return to murder and division in our class'?

Perhaps you would like to do so (in that thread)?

Admin edit - flaming removed

Admin

from "tripoli"Admin edit - flaming removed

I guess someone was rescued by the "anarchist police."

from "tripoli"

wojtek

At risk of derailing this thread further

Alexander Rodwell wrote:
I persist in defending the right of nations to self determination just can't figure out why I find their "arguments" against it so lame brain.

Well in the thread 'Irish unification (26+6=1) - what's wrong with it?' ( http://libcom.org/forums/ireland/irish-unification-2661-whats-wrong-it-31122010 ), you failed to explain what benefits a united Ireland would actually bring to the Catholic working class beyond some vague idea of having 'their land' 'back' and also how support for the Irish national liberation should be actively carried out; by supporting the parliamentary party Sinn Fein, who were at the time (and still are?) presiding over cuts in the NHS and public services as part of the northern ireland government, or by supporting the dissident splinter groups who according to -LIAM- are 'little more than apolitical sectarian bigots and offer nothing but a return to murder and division in our class'?

Perhaps you would like to do so (in that thread)?

I do not recall exactly what I said here but let me respond as I would now. Obviously I am very conscious that the censors of this board will be looking at this response with what I presume to be a bias to purge.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Evidently most of the people that post to this board oppose the principal of the right of nations to self-determination. I do not own a computer at home but must use one in the library - or worse - pay to come post at a kinkos. The library only allows 1 hour of computer time per day altho if there is no one standing in line behind you are often "given" an extra 20, 30, or even 60 minutes. I have had the experience of being "renewed" 4 times for 4 hours. But this can not be depended on. In the past (not the present) I found that sometimes I would get over 10 or 15 replies to a single post that I would make. Some had more merit than others. Often I found that the arguments were "circular" and flowed from premises that were not stated at all and to untangle them I had to "guess" what these premises might be. When I did that I was often accused of making them up.

What I would ask of you, wojtek, is that you let me know which particular postings you find here that "pierce" my arguments substantially and I will respond to them rather than attempt to "cover everything."

As to the specific questions you posted above:

[quote=wojtek]you failed to explain what benefits a united Ireland would actually bring to the Catholic working class beyond some vague idea of having 'their land' 'back' [quote]

It would "close" that question which is diverting the Irish Catholic working class from focusing on the class struggle. It is also a blow at British Imperialism, one of the greatest enemies of the world's workers as well as peasants.

[quote=wojtek] how support for the Irish national liberation should be actively carried out [quote]

I do not know.

[quote=wojtek] how support for the Irish national liberation should be actively carried out; by supporting the parliamentary party Sinn Fein [quote]

No. I would advocate either support of or the creation of, a socialist party or fraction that would support Irish national liberation but remain separate from any bourgeois party or fraction.

[quote=wojtek] how support for the Irish national liberation should be actively carried out; ......by supporting the dissident splinter groups who according to -LIAM- are 'little more than apolitical sectarian bigots and offer nothing but a return to murder and division in our class'? [quote]

No. Again. I would advocate either support of or the creation of, a socialist party or fraction that would support Irish national liberation but remain separate from any bourgeois party or fraction. I do not support "apolitical sectarian bigots" as a road to liberation

Sorry about the formatting.

"I would advocate either support of or the creation of, a socialist party or fraction..."

Forgive me for not reading through all of the previous posts but the above quote merits reply... the usual cul-de-sac of 'revolutionary party' has often been the bane of the libertarian... there isn't a single example of social democracy worth talking about despite the many so-called socialist parties; so why on earth would you suggest it as having any bearing whatsoever?

As an internationalist one is always alarmed by nationalism of any hue, and yet cautious considering any struggle seeking to topple a regime within a nation state could be considered a national struggle (semantic) simply because it takes place within borders designated as nation states. But unless such a movement/struggle expresses a clear vision beyond the glorious day, and beyond the 'united'/'liberated' fallacy then it must be assumed to be a struggle to replace one rgime with another.

As this is the case with all political parties I see no sense in advocating any form of 'socialist party', which I see as being anti-revolutionary.

Could you please rephrase the above post? I haven't the foggiest idea what it is you are saying or even trying to say.

When I speak of "socialist" party I most certainly do not mean a "social democratic" party. Is this what you thought I was saying?

Aplogies if the second paragraph was a bit of a tangent (extrapolating on semantics there) but the gist is fairly obvious?

You appear to be suggesting that some form of party can somehow solve the Irish situation, but only one without connection to bourgeois party or faction.

Any form of socialist party, SD or otherwise, is anti-revolutionary as far as I'm concerned because party politics are a dead-end for the libertarian. Even those with the best of intensions will be subsumed.

Revolutionary parties, if that's what you mean, are much the same; especially ones that encourages Irish National Liberation. We've had a few of those over the years and they continue to add fuel to the flames.

Perhaps people do not understand what “support for the right of national self-determination" means.

It means that if there is a movement for separation or cession or autonomy by a significant segment of the working class and/or peasant population of an oppressed national identity you support their right to pursue that goal.

So, in the case of the Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland, it means that if a large segment of the Catholic working class supports secession from Great Britain and unity with the Irish republic you support their right to pursue that goal.

I am not an anarchist and support the idea of a "party" of like minded people united around a revolutionary program*. I certainly recognize that "having" such a party does not mean that it will not become an impediment to the pursuit of revolutionary goals but if you remain just an isolated individual that joins with others locally around "issues of the day" that will ever lead to a successful revolution. I would probably never join a "nationalist" party unless under peculiarly stressful civil war circumstances where a whole revolutionary socialist party enters as a bloc. Such circumstances existed in various resistance movements during World War II.

*I recognize the twin evils of "opportunism" and "sectarianism" but do not have a magic formula to avoid them.

Alexander Roxwell

So, in the case of the Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland, it means that if a large segment of the Catholic working class supports secession from Great Britain and unity with the Irish republic you support their right to pursue that goal

What about if a large segment of the the 'Protestant' working class supports union with Great Britain and continued partition from the Irish Republic?
Oh look, a useless binary!

PartyBucket

What about if a large segment of the 'Protestant' working class supports union with Great Britain and continued partition from the Irish Republic?

Let me see. What if a large majority of the white working class supports the exclusion of Chinese workers from emigrating to the United States?

Woops. Did that happen in the United States? How did the socialists and anarchists of the time respond?

Supporting a Catholic working class desire to unite with the Irish Republic can be supported because it is still a just cause - even if arguably "obsolete." A Protestant working class desire to smooch the Empire of blood is not. That should be remedial Basic Marxism 1A.

A useless "binary" indeed !

Alexander Roxwell

PartyBucket

What about if a large segment of the 'Protestant' working class supports union with Great Britain and continued partition from the Irish Republic?

Let me see. What if a large majority of the white working class supports the exclusion of Chinese workers from emigrating to the United States?

Woops. Did that happen in the United States? How did the socialists and anarchists of the time respond?

Supporting a Catholic working class desire to unite with the Irish Republic can be supported because it is still a just cause - even if arguably "obsolete." A Protestant working class desire to smooch the Empire of blood is not. That should be remedial Basic Marxism 1A.

A useless "binary" indeed !

This debates about Ireland, why are you bringing up 'whites' versus 'Chinese' in the USA? "In response to the question of Irish Nationalism, here is an instance of racism in the USA, and as we all know, RACISM IS BAD". Why the constant need to insist that two sides of one conflict transpose exactly on to the two sides of another, so that anything you say about the one MUST be true of the other?
Deal with the issue at hand, on its own terms.
Also, Im not a Marxist (in your sense anyway) or an Anti-imperialist, so I dont need your remedial classes in those subjects. Why is Irish Catholic nationalism 'just'? Because you decide it is? 'Obselete'? When was it ever useful for anything besides fomenting sectarian conflict along with its equally dead-end British/Ulster nationalist counterpart?
How exactly by the way would someone who was, say, an American stuck in a '60s New Left timewarp, go about 'supporting' this 'just cause', other than saying that they do?
Also, do you actually believe this 'Prod-Unionist/Taig-Nationalist' idea you have of the Northern Irish working class as two homogenous lumps is an accurate one? Or do you just need it to be so in order for the situation to fit in to your ideological framework?

Perhaps people do not understand what “support for the right of national self-determination" means.
It means that if there is a movement for separation or cession or autonomy by a significant segment of the working class and/or peasant population of an oppressed national identity you support their right to pursue that goal.
So, in the case of the Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland, it means that if a large segment of the Catholic working class supports secession from Great Britain and unity with the Irish republic you support their right to pursue that goal.

The ‘Right of national self-determination’ has rightly been denounced by revolutionaries as reactionary bollocks for the past 100 years. 100 years of national liberation struggles have shown, without exception, that they tie workers and peasants to a bourgeois agenda whereby at best they’ll change exploiters and at worst drown in blood in the interests of imperialism. The right of ‘ a large segment of the Catholic working class’ to identify with the interests of an Eire bourgoisie currently having their testacles squeezed in the interests of the wider european bourgeoisie? FFS!

Supporting a Catholic working class desire to unite with the Irish Republic can be supported because it is still a just cause - even if arguably "obsolete."

No idea what ‘arguably obsolete’ means, but two points: accepting the notion of a ‘Catholic’ or nationalist or republican working class is to accept the ideological divisions that capitalist ideology uses to divide and defeat us, we should be saying loud and clear that such divisions serve only to mask the common interests of our class; and second, while bourgeois shits like Sinn Fein etc might witter about nationalism being a ‘just cause’ , we should be saying, again loud and clear, and regardless of how popular it seems to be, that it is ALWAYS reactionary, ALWAYS a weapon against us.

Apparently the New Left-influenced anti-imperialists of today, with their support for the likes of Gaddafi and Ahmedinejad and the divisive Catholic vs Protestant religious nonsense, are more degenerated than even Lenin and Stalin, both of whom supported anti-imperialism only under certain conditions.
Stalin

support must be given to such national movements as tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism, and not to strengthen and preserve it. Cases occur when the national movements in certain oppressed countries came into conflict with the interests of the development of the proletarian movement. In such cases support is, of course, entirely out of the question. The question of the rights of nations is not an isolated, self-sufficient question; it is a part of the general problem of the proletarian revolution, subordinate to the whole, and must be considered from the point of view of the whole.

The Foundations of Leninism
Lenin

Social-Democracy bases its whole world-outlook on scientific socialism, i. e., Marxism. The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism, which has fully taken over the historical traditions of eighteenth-century materialism in France and of Feuerbach (first half of the nineteenth century) in Germany—a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion. Let us recall that the whole of Engels’s Anti-Dühring, which Marx read in manuscript, is an indictment of the materialist and atheist Dühring for not being a consistent materialist and for leaving loopholes for religion and religious philosophy. Let us recall that in his essay on Ludwig Feuerbach, Engels reproaches Feuerbach for combating religion not in order to destroy it, but in order to renovate it, to invent a new, “exalted” religion, and so forth. Religion is the opium of the people—this dictum by Marx is the corner-stone of the whole Marxist outlook on religion.[1] Marxism has always regarded all modern religions and churches, and each and every religious organisation, as instruments of bourgeois reaction that serve to defend exploitation and to befuddle the working class.

The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion

Not informed enough to comment, just adding this quote:

‘If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and waters with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs. England would still rule you to your ruin, even while your lips offered hypocritical homage at the shrine of that freedom whose cause you betrayed’. - James Connolly

Apfelstrudel

Not informed enough to comment, just adding this quote:

‘If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and waters with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs. England would still rule you to your ruin, even while your lips offered hypocritical homage at the shrine of that freedom whose cause you betrayed’. - James Connolly

Why?
Do you agree with the sentiments in the quote?
Not agree with them?
Have any analysis of them?

PartyBucket

Why is Irish Catholic nationalism 'just'? Because you decide it is? 'Obselete'? When was it ever useful for anything besides fomenting sectarian conflict along with its equally dead-end British/Ulster nationalist counterpart?

Let's grant you, for the time being, the notion that "Irish nationalism" aspires to dominate the world.

How does that compare to the British Empire's actual domination of the world?

Are they really equal?

If you are going to argue that they are equal I will have to abandon you to your own world and proceed without you. If you are going to argue that they are both both equally "morally bad" in the abstractI will have to agree with you but shrug my shoulders and tell you that this is irrelevant to the actual class struggle taking place in the world today.

The "nationalism" of the oppressed is not the same as the "nationalism" of a real imperialist power.

Communists cannot ever give aid and comfort to the aspirations of an Empire. That means a real one not a hallucinated one.

Communists must not allow their criticism of the victim of an Empire to jeopardize their fundamental solidarity with her/his struggle for self preservation.

And yes. Even tho the parallel with the white working class support for the Chinese Exclusion Act somehow escapes you it is spot-on relevant.

Alexander Roxwell

Let's grant you, for the time being, the notion that "Irish nationalism" aspires to dominate the world.

How does that compare to the British Empire's actual domination of the world?

Are they really equal?

When did I say alledge it does want to dominate the world? It aspires to a 32 county Irish nation state, which as an anarchist and internationalist I believe to be a reactionary idea on its own terms...I dont need it to be 'equal' to anything else or not for that to be the case.

Alexander Rockwell

If you are going to argue that they are equal I will have to abandon you to your own world and proceed without you. If you are going to argue that they are both both equally "morally bad" in the abstractI will have to agree with you but shrug my shoulders and tell you that this is irrelevant to the actual class struggle taking place in the world today.

Proceed where? How in real life do you support this nationalism of the oppressed you hold so dear other than saying that you do? And since I live in Belfast and you do not, who is really dealing with things in 'the abstract'?

Alexander Rockwell

The "nationalism" of the oppressed is not the same as the "nationalism" of a real imperialist power.

Unequal in ability to achieve its aspirations at the current time, but a poisonous dead-end for the working class just the same, so not to be supported.

Alexander Rockwell

Communists cannot ever give aid and comfort to the aspirations of an Empire. That means a real one not a hallucinated one.

I'd be interested to know how the think the British Empire manifests itself in Northern Ireland? Is it the PSNI? Stormont? Or, is it just 'THE PRODS'?

Alexander Rockwell

And yes. Even tho the parallel with the white working class support for the Chinese Exclusion Act somehow escapes you it is spot-on relevant.

No, its a case of racism in one country. A far cry from an examination of a much more complex dispute about a national border, fuelled by competing nationalisms and religions, and how the continued adherence of the working class in the north east of Ireland to these nationalisms has affected the opportunity for real class-based politics to develop.

Double post edited.

@PartyBucket

I do not agree with the sentimental/emotional and nationalist tendencies clearly shown in "...planted in this country and waters with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs."
But the first part says something important, in that it is a definition, by one of the great leaders of the Irish freedom movement, of what "a free Ireland" means - i.e. that it is more than just declaring a 32 county republic.

Since this has roughly been the general current of what people here have been saying, thought they may not agree with Connolly's specific method or vision, I thought it'd be nice to post the quote.

Apfelstrudel

@PartyBucket

I do not agree with the sentimental/emotional and nationalist tendencies clearly shown in "...planted in this country and waters with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs."
But the first part says something important, in that it is a definition, by one of the great leaders of the Irish freedom movement, of what "a free Ireland" means - i.e. that it is more than just declaring a 32 county republic.

Since this has roughly been the general current of what people here have been saying, thought they may not agree with Connolly's specific method or vision, I thought it'd be nice to post the quote.

As a Communist, Anarchist, Internationalist, I am not interested in a 'Free Ireland' (not even sure what that means exactly); I am for a stateless, borderless, moneyless, classless society that exists globally and is globally connected and interdependent.
What is this 'Irish freedom' you speak of?
Free from what?
At best it seems like a form of 'socialism in one country'.

@PartyBucket

I think, from what little I know, that Connolly's plans were clearly for socialism in one country. While I am not in support of such a plan, being an anarchist myself and agreeing with your position, I still think that Connolly makes one good point - namely that as you yourself imply, "freedom" is more than just declaring a 32 county republic. His thinking shows that he understands at least to some degree the role of capitalist expoiltation, he just doesn't go far enough.

Alexander Roxwell

Let's grant you, for the time being, the notion that "Irish nationalism" aspires to dominate the world.

Nobody really "dominates" the world today. The world is actually carved into imperialist blocs, each with their own desires for domination. Irish nationalism cannot dominate the world, neither can it change anything since a new Irish nation state just would get integrated into the world market and would become part of one or the other imperialist camp as in Angola, where the MPLA bourgeois faction fought against the UNITA and the FNLA bourgeois factions in the Angolan Civil War. The MPLA were supported by the "socialist" U.S.S.R., the FNLA and UNITA, by "socialist" China, the U.S.A and others. All that came out of it was another bourgeois state, integrated into the world market. In the time of the U.S.S.R., Irish nationalists could perhaps have conceivably looked to the Russians for help and have gotten a national liberation (which may or may not have actually happened in reality). However, now that the U.S.S.R. no longer exists, a united Irish state would have to look for some other bloc, perhaps a future one formed by Russia or Venezuela(?), to come into existence, integrate into and survive. Either way, the whole exercise would be meaningless since the workers of all the countries in this hypothetical bloc would be already too infused with nationalism, subject to brutal international warfare and far too weakened because of their collaborating with the nationalist bourgeoisie to conceive of a socialist revolution. This was the pattern across all the anti-colonial, nationalist revolts of the past century supported by either the U.S.S.R. or China or India or some other power.

PartyBucket:

I no longer know what to say to you. You seem more like a Jehovah's Witness than a Marxist of any stripe. You "believe" that striving to get out from under the thumb of a foreign power is a "reactionary" goal and that is all there is to it. If the working class disagrees with you then fuck 'em. You know best.

Alexander Roxwell

PartyBucket:

I no longer know what to say to you. You seem more like a Jehovah's Witness than a Marxist of any stripe. You "believe" that striving to get out from under the thumb of a foreign power is a "reactionary" goal and that is all there is to it. If the working class disagrees with you then fuck 'em. You know best.

That's a silly accusation for a Marxist. What happened to upholding class analysis despite the prevailing prejudices of the day?

You yourself posted a great argument against this very post of yours earlier in the thread about the Chinese Exclusion Act. Since the working-class disagreed with you A.R., you are saying they were right to want to keep the Chinese from entering the US and taking railroad and mining jobs (as people like Haywood did)? Because that is what a large portion of the working-class wanted at the time.

It's workerism pure and simple to say that because the workers think it now, under the influence of bourgeois ideologies, it must be right. Though as has been pointed out, things are significantly different in Northern Ireland than you seem to imagine.

EDIT:

I'd also like to add my 2 cents regarding this statement:

You seem more like a Jehovah's Witness than a Marxist of any stripe. You "believe" that striving to get out from under the thumb of a foreign power is a "reactionary" goal and that is all there is to it.

Is there a fundamental truth underlying this statement? Is it truly progressive or revolutionary for a nations working-class and oppressed population in general to support one capitalist state (whether it be their own national bourgeoisie and intelligentsia, a different foreign state, etc) over another (a currently occupying foreign state)? Would the Northern Irish working-class be better off being exploited by an Irish national bourgeoisie as their counterparts in the South?

The answer given by class struggle minded militants and those with personal links by nature of their residence/background in Ireland or the UKon this thread have resoundedly answered No to that last question. What makes you believe that the working-class is better off toiling and exploited under another bourgeoisie with a different language or culture than the one currently exploiting them?

PartyBucket, workingclass and anybody else still trying to have a reasonable discussion with Alexander Roxwell, you're wasting your time.

Lots of us have tried on previous threads, and we've got nowhere. He won't engage in a discussion, and his dismissals of others on these boards are growing more frequent and insulting.

I'm not even sure why he keeps at it; perhaps he really is just a sophisticated troll.

But I don't think he should be banned, just ignored, like a child 'playing up' for attention.

LBird

PartyBucket, workingclass and anybody else still trying to have a reasonable discussion with Alexander Roxwell, you're wasting your time.

Lots of us have tried on previous threads, and we've got nowhere. He won't engage in a discussion, and his dismissals of others on these boards are growing more frequent and insulting.

I'm not even sure why he keeps at it; perhaps he really is just a sophisticated troll.

But I don't think he should be banned, just ignored, like a child 'playing up' for attention.

I don't mind if people discussing on this forum do not engage well with each other. This is a public forum and these discussions are visible to anyone reading this website.

Alexander Roxwell

PartyBucket:

I no longer know what to say to you. You seem more like a Jehovah's Witness than a Marxist of any stripe. You "believe" that striving to get out from under the thumb of a foreign power is a "reactionary" goal.

1. I already told you Im not a 'Marxist'.
2. Since this is a Libertarian Communist board and I am a Libertarian Communist, arent you the one sticking your foot in my front door spouting shit?
3. 'Foreign' is an appropriate word...the foreign power opposed as a foreigner not for class reasons, which is just one reason why your precious Anti-Imperialism is a bag of shit.

Striving to get out from under the thumb of a foreign power is not a direct engagement in the "class struggle."

Supporting the struggle of an Empire to impose a foreign overlord on a crushed people is not a direct engagement in the "class struggle."

Therefore we do not care about the outcome of such a struggle.

If that does not sum up your [$@*&$+] opinion then please revise as appropriate.

Tojiah

Would you support the Confederacy against the oppression of Unionist imperialism in the American Civil War?

Let me see. Would I support the right of slaveowners to keep and maintain their ownership of slaves unmolested.

No. I would have joined Karl Marx in supporting the utter smashing of the slaveocracy. I do believe that I have stated that in an earlier post.

Alexander Roxwell

Tojiah

Would you support the Confederacy against the oppression of Unionist imperialism in the American Civil War?

Let me see. Would I support the right of slaveowners to keep and maintain their ownership of slaves unmolested.

No. I would have joined Karl Marx in supporting the utter smashing of the slaveocracy. I do believe that I have stated that in an earlier post.

So why do you support the right of the Palestinian bourgeoisie for example to keep and maintain the ownership of Palestinian wage slaves unmolested by the more powerful Israeli bourgeoisie?

Alexander Roxwell

PartyBucket:

I no longer know what to say to you. You seem more like a Jehovah's Witness than a Marxist of any stripe. You "believe" that striving to get out from under the thumb of a foreign power is a "reactionary" goal and that is all there is to it. If the working class disagrees with you then fuck 'em. You know best.

That is your attitude, you've even directly said that above. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with the working class, what is wrong is deciding that you need to pick sides with two opposing nationalist tendencies. The problem is the relation of power, not the particular person or group that wields the power.
for example: John Bull is ten years old and so is Saint Patrick and his five friends. John is bigger than Patrick and his friends and takes half of their sweets. Patrick gets his brother Sam to beat up John. Sam takes half of the boys' sweets as a reward. Young Patrick and his friends find their sweets taste sweeter and do not mind the fact that nothing has really changed.

Striving to get out from under the thumb of a foreign power is not a direct engagement in the "class struggle."

Supporting the struggle of an Empire to impose a foreign overlord on a crushed people is not a direct engagement in the "class struggle."

Therefore we do not care about the outcome of such a struggle.

If that does not sum up your [$@*&$+] opinion then please revise as appropriate.

Substantial sections of the working class consider the irish government to be the foreign power. Not sure if it is a majority any more, but it was within living memory.
Striving to liberate people from being under anyone's thumb is a direct engagement in the class struggle, demanding that the nail polish on the thumb be changed from a union jack to a tricolore is not a direct engagement in the class struggle no matter how much socialist rhetoric you put in (in fact pretty little, as even that Conolly quote is against you).

But to return to your final point, you'e actually correct in summing up the position of an actual communist/anarchist.

Therefore we do not care about the outcome of such a struggle.

The difference is we recognise that the struggle between British Imperialism and the admittedly smaller Irish Imperialism is one in which we have no real stake.

If my company outsources me, I move from a large call centre run by a multinational ( boo) to a smaller, national company (hooray). If my pay and conditions stay the same then it doesn't much matter, who cares which name is on the door of the building. But if those conditions change then I will be angry and hope to organise with my colleagues to fight back. If my company tries to make those changes I will try to fight back. If my company tries to outsource so it doesn't have to do them directly I still try to fight back. The important part is fighting back, not which particular boss it is against.

One more point, most of the Irish bourgeoisie recognises that Northern Ireland would be an albatross for the republic. It would increase the population by over 50%, unemployment is rife in northern Ireland and the south would need to find the money to start paying benefits etc. It would need to take control of the policing (the entrenched sectarian divides would presumably not vanish overnight). A good half of this new population would have been against joining ( one sixth of the elctorate) with this opposition ranging from practical (venefits etc) or mild to vehement loyalism. It would also mean that instead of using N.I. to fuck with the Brits they would find the Brits using N.I. to fuck with them. Much less fun and much less useful strategically.

LBird:

anybody .... still trying to have a reasonable discussion with Alexander Roxwell, you're wasting your time.

Totally agree; and having just begun to read this about Vietnam one can see that the struggles of workers and peasants against imperialism also involved struggles against capitalist social relations which the so-called "anti-imperialists" repressed with as much brutality and lies as the imperialists, with whom they often collaborated - and the history of Ireland is no exception.

Peter

Alexander Roxwell

Tojiah

Would you support the Confederacy against the oppression of Unionist imperialism in the American Civil War?

Let me see. Would I support the right of slaveowners to keep and maintain their ownership of slaves unmolested.

No. I would have joined Karl Marx in supporting the utter smashing of the slaveocracy. I do believe that I have stated that in an earlier post.

So why do you support the right of the Palestinian bourgeoisie for example to keep and maintain the ownership of Palestinian wage slaves unmolested by the more powerful Israeli bourgeoisie?

Would you have supported the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis or would you see that as:

Peter(really a paraphrase of)

.... support for the right of the Warsaw Jewish bourgeoisie to keep and maintain the ownership of Jewish wage slaves unmolested by the more powerful Nazi bourgeoisie?

Your question, like Tojiah's, is ridiculous !

I got to say, Roxwell just hit a huge touche against Peter there...

I think what we need is a new thread on a nations right to self determination ;)

Arbeiten brings up a good point.

To my understanding the Good Friday acknowledges 'that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wished to remain a part of the United Kingdom' and 'that a substantial section of the people of Northern Ireland, and the majority of the people of the island of Ireland, wished to bring about a united Ireland.'

and that should a majority of the people of both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland seek a united Ireland both the British and Irish governments would be under a "blinding obligation" to comply

(yes this is from Wikipedia)

The only arguments I have heard against Unification are
- Unification would disenfranchise the Protestant proletariat
and
-Sinn Fein supported austerity measures
-worries about Catholicism and reproductive rights
and for
-"self-determination"

Can anyone actually answer the question as to what the working class would stand to either gain or lose through unification?