The collapse of the eastern bloc, imperialism and the 1992 Balkan War

201 posts / 0 new
Last post
Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Dec 24 2007 22:23
Quote:
but we don't need to act like them.

There wasn't any "act" of insulting, I was making a point. You are an English teacher, you shouldn't miss those kind of things. I said:

Quote:
To be honest, he could have also said that

This doesn't mean that neither he or I or anyone else said it, nor does it mean that anyone should say it. It says that this being said is a possibility. I also said that this is the wrong approach and the right approach is sticking up to politics.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Dec 24 2007 22:42

Ernie; I have never expressed any interest in discussing those questions with your congregation - I simply pointed out, along with several others, that speculation was yet again wrongly being claimed as fact. Which none of you have been able to dispute - or, for the most part, admit. The way you've all responded to that simple fact being pointed out only reinforces the lack of interest in debating with you. Nobody has denied that certain speculations are possibilities and we can assess the past and present with that in mind - but that is different from the method being criticised. Your cited claims, now watered down into possibilities, are no great revelation so not particularly illuminating or appealing as a discussion, IMO. Adherence to a rigid party line by one side in a dialogue is not indicative of a likely 'fruitful discussion'. As we've already seen, for example, on this thread.

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Dec 25 2007 03:16
Ret Marut wrote:
Ernie; I have never expressed any interest in discussing those questions with your congregation - I simply pointed out, along with several others, that speculation was yet again wrongly being claimed as fact. Which none of you have been able to dispute - or, for the most part, admit. The way you've all responded to that simple fact being pointed out only reinforces the lack of interest in debating with you. Nobody has denied that certain speculations are possibilities and we can assess the past and present with that in mind - but that is different from the method being criticised. Your cited claims, now watered down into possibilities, are no great revelation so not particularly illuminating or appealing as a discussion, IMO. Adherence to a rigid party line by one side in a dialogue is not indicative of a likely 'fruitful discussion'. As we've already seen, for example, on this thread.

Well it seems things have been clarified. The subject matter is boring anyway, plus who wants to discuss with a bunch of Leninist?

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 25 2007 06:06
Leo Uilleann wrote:
Quote:
but we don't need to act like them.

There wasn't any "act" of insulting, I was making a point. You are an English teacher, you shouldn't miss those kind of things. I said:

Quote:
To be honest, he could have also said that

This doesn't mean that neither he or I or anyone else said it, nor does it mean that anyone should say it. It says that this being said is a possibility. I also said that this is the wrong approach and the right approach is sticking up to politics.

Yes, I understand that it is an unreal sentence. Do you also understand that it implies that he could have said it because he is?

Devrim

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 25 2007 06:17
mikail firtinaci wrote:
"That doesn't mean that they weren't looking for one. It doesn't mean that they weren't involved in drug dealing, and other gangsterism. It doesn't mean that they still weren't anti-working class. It does mean that not every national liberation movement at every point in its history is a direct pawn of a rival power."

Devrim, I think the source of confusion here is that you think PKK as a simple leftist organisation and not as a pre-state beurocratic formation. -Sometimes even states might seem isolated. -

I think that your last sentence there is an acceptance of my point. I think that there is a danger of taking general tendencies for iron rules. It is possible that a national liberation movement can also be isolated. This does not change its nature. Whether the IRA was backed by the west is not the point. It doesn't change anything about them.

mikail firtinaci wrote:
About the anti-working class; You are over-emphasising that part. Yes pkk 's "class interests" and proletariat's are different. However the source of difference is not based on pkk's lack od sympathy or hatred towards the working class. It is becouse pkk is a pawn or a part of imperialist conflict, because it is an alternative beurocracy aiming towards to fill the void caused by the crisis of turkish burgeoisie-state... In the final analysis pkk is a pawn of a conflict inside burgeoisie using working class for its aims. -Even pkk did not kill the turkish teachers it will still be an anti working class organisation.-

The thing about the PKK killing school teachers is not the reason that I think that they are anti working class, but a symptom of it. They are anti working class because they mobilise workers in the defence of the interests of the 'nation', which means putting aside their own interests, and they mobilise them against other workers.

This is because of the nature of national movements, not because the PKK is a pawn, or a part of an imperialist conflict, which is not to say that it is not.

Devrim

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Dec 25 2007 07:38
Quote:
I think that your last sentence there is an acceptance of my point. I think that there is a danger of taking general tendencies for iron rules. It is possible that a national liberation movement can also be isolated. This does not change its nature. Whether the IRA was backed by the west is not the point. It doesn't change anything about them.

If you accept that my last sentece is similar to what you said then it means you did not understand my position. I said even nation states might seem isolated "from 4 direction". indeed This is the general discourse of turkish state. However being isolated in a certain period of time -which is the case you argued- does not mean that there is no longer any connection of an organisation or even state ceased to be connected with "imperialism". PKK is itself an apparatus, a military and political means of a burgeoisie acting and thinking like a state. Allying itself with other states etc. This is necessary for pkk in order it to become a real pole inside burgeoisie politics. I do not want to write more on this point. It must be clear - at least theoretically- that in this period no national liberation movement can be considered outside of imperialist conflict.

Quote:
They are anti working class because they mobilise workers in the defence of the interests of the 'nation', which means putting aside their own interests, and they mobilise them against other workers.

I do not question this point. I ask "how" not "what". I know the definition of national liberation. Most national liberation movements are armed struggle movements do not generally avoid using terroristic means. But lets say, were the carribean national liberation movement at the begining of the 19th century was also "anti-working class"? Or did it in fact help the development of A working class?

So if you do not consider the historical epoch of capitalism, it still lacks clarity to say that national lib. divides workers. Yes of course it divides workers but FOR mobilising them to an inter-imperialist conflict.

Quote:
This is because of the nature of national movements, not because the PKK is a pawn, or a part of an imperialist conflict, which is not to say that it is not

.

This is the mystification that I meant. You are only partially showing the truth. Nation state is a form also -let's say- following feudal state. Than is it also progressive by nature? ( under feudalism there is serfdom not wage labour)

So if there is a history I quess pkk being counter revolutionary is related to its being a pawn in imperialist conflict. Otherwise it would be a bad joke, a carricature of stalinist organisation among many we have here

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Dec 25 2007 07:38

dp

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Dec 25 2007 10:03
Quote:
Do you also understand that it implies that he could have said it because he is?

No, because it is something which could be said as a response to and an equivalent of something that is not true. Besides, you can't really imply that a swearword describe someone: swearwords express anger rather than their literal meanings.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 25 2007 12:50
mikail firtinaci wrote:
Quote:
I think that your last sentence there is an acceptance of my point. I think that there is a danger of taking general tendencies for iron rules. It is possible that a national liberation movement can also be isolated. This does not change its nature. Whether the IRA was backed by the west is not the point. It doesn't change anything about them.

If you accept that my last sentece is similar to what you said then it means you did not understand my position. I said even nation states might seem isolated "from 4 direction". indeed This is the general discourse of turkish state. However being isolated in a certain period of time -which is the case you argued- does not mean that there is no longer any connection of an organisation or even state ceased to be connected with "imperialism". PKK is itself an apparatus, a military and political means of a burgeoisie acting and thinking like a state. Allying itself with other states etc. This is necessary for pkk in order it to become a real pole inside burgeoisie politics. I do not want to write more on this point. It must be clear - at least theoretically- that in this period no national liberation movement can be considered outside of imperialist conflict.

I really don't see what your point is here. My point is simple. Here is what I said originally (with added emphasis):

Quote:
I don't think that this is a rule. I think that it is a general tendency. I don't think that every national liberation movement at every point of its history is a direct pawn of some imperialist power or other.

I think that this is clearly true.

Devrim

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Dec 25 2007 20:36

Its interesting to compare the arguments made on this thread with what the same groups members are arguing on http://libcom.org/forums/history/russian-revolution-paid-german-imperial-state-19122007

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Dec 25 2007 22:30
Quote:
Its interesting to compare the arguments made on this thread with what the same groups members are arguing on

How so?

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Dec 25 2007 22:38

Merry christmas one and all, with a special greeting to Alibadani and the comrades in Turkey!

Only recently heard about the developments in this discussion. Can't get online for a couple of days but will be back soon. I've downloaded the WSM article on 'left communism and its ideology' and will read that soon. Also look forward to replying to Tree of Judas about the communism book.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Dec 26 2007 12:36

Loe Black 2;

than bolsheviks are a bunch of national liberation gangster for you right. Because otherwise there is no connection...

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 30 2007 14:09

Guy

What do you think they are then?

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 30 2007 14:14

Ret

Quote:
I have never expressed any interest in discussing those questions with your congregation

Doesn't seem to stop you though. And we are more than willing to carry on the discussion.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Dec 30 2007 18:27
ernie wrote:
Ret
Quote:
I have never expressed any interest in discussing those questions with your congregation

Doesn't seem to stop you though. And we are more than willing to carry on the discussion.

Try and show me where I've discussed 'those questions' [i.e. the IRA] with you on this thread - then when you haven't been able to, admit that your above statement is, once again, inaccurate.

ernie wrote:
What is it about the O'casey article that you are so upset about? Is there a thread where you explain this?

Upset? confused If you read what others write more carefully you might often find therein some answers to the questions you ask. I'd already told you that;

Beltov
Offline
Joined: 10-05-05
Dec 30 2007 18:28
guydebordisdead wrote:
Does the ICC literally believe that 'the IRA' are a 'proxy army' for the US?

Guy, we've tried to explain the framework we developed to understand the situation that emerged after the collapse of the Western bloc post 1989. British imperialism began to take a more independent stance from the US, and when this created problems for the US (when Britain and the US supported different sides in the war in the Balkans) they used the situation in Northern Ireland as a pressure point to try to reign in the British. Successive US administrations have thus manipulated SF and the IRA for their own interests. This is what we said in March 2005,

ICC wrote:
IRA and US imperialism
When the McCartney sisters met George Bush during their American visit they heard that “there are people going on the radio back home saying that we’re visiting the world’s biggest terrorist”. Martin McGuinness warned them of the danger of being used as political pawns. That was the grossest of hypocrisy. Sinn Féin has been openly consorting with US presidents since 1994 when Clinton gave Gerry Adams a visa, and then lifted the ban on the group so that they could legally raise tens of millions of dollars from American supporters. In the talks that led up to the Good Friday Agreement SF were in round-the-clock contact with the White House, not able to take a step without the approval of US imperialism.

Even after his recent snub in Washington, Adams remained convinced that the basic position of the US administration had not changed. Although if it did “I would be very, very perturbed”.

US manipulation of Sinn Féin and the IRA against Britain has greatly increased since the end of the Anglo-American ‘special relationship’ in the early 1990s. Britain is no longer a loyal lieutenant in a US imperialist bloc against the USSR. It has tried to forge an independent imperialist policy, which the US has used every means to try to restrain. In Ireland Britain has used everything from demands for decommissioning, allegations of IRA spying, and now the charges of murder and robbery to limit the role of Sinn Féin

The loyalty of Irish republicanism to the US comes from a whole historical period in which an independent Ireland is impossible. As Trotsky said after the Easter Rising of 1916 “an ‘independent’ Ireland could exist only as an outpost of an imperialist state hostile to Britain” (Nashe Slovo 4/7/16). Because of this Irish nationalism has always courted powers that could take on British imperialism, particularly Germany and the US. The famous proclamation made in front of the Post Office in Dublin in 1916 refers to the support of “exiled children in America and by gallant allies in Europe”. This is not just a topical reference to the abortive attempt to use American money to get arms from Germany, but an acknowledgement that no nationalist movement can make advances without becoming a piece in greater imperialist conflicts.

If US rebukes to Sinn Féin prove to be more than passing it will not be because of what Edward Kennedy calls “the IRA’s ongoing criminal activity and contempt for the rule of law”. It will be because US imperialism is using other means to pursue its interests.

From: IRA - still agents of imperialism
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/283_ira.htm

If you have an alternative theory then we can discuss it.

B.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 31 2007 12:21

Ret

Cheers for the link to the O'casey link I had not read it. I would encourage all those reading this thead and who have not read this thread to do so because it concretely demonstrates the totally hollow nature of Ret's and Guy's accusations about the ICC's article on O'csasey. Far from not answering the points raised, lurch - a supporter of the ICC- answers them all, but not to the liking of Ret and Guy who appear to be greatly offended by Lurch's and the ICC denunciation of the Easter 1916 up rising, Guy particularly does not like the fact that Lurch shows that the WSM called the uprising a blow against imperialism, though he actually never answers Lurch's question about does he agree that the uprising was an 'blow against imperialism'?
It is funny how a thread can mean two different things: for Ret it is an expression of the ICC's deviousness, whereas for us it is an intransigent defense of internationalism against nationalism in all its forms.
The thread also does a lot to help explain why Guy gets so defensive about the idea the IRA is a tool of US imperialism.
Once again I strong urge all those who haven't to carefully read the O'Casey thread because it illuminates this discussion.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 31 2007 12:28

Guy

The question still stands

Quote:
do you reject the slogan of national liberation?

An answer would certainly help to clarify the nature of your objections to the ICC's temerity to call the IRA a proxy of the US.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Dec 31 2007 17:03
ernie wrote:
totally hollow nature of Ret's and Guy's accusations about the ICC's article on O'csasey.

Please, quote my 'hollow accusations' about the article - then when you can't cos they don't exist, retract your lie and apologise for yet again making things up. I never even directly addressed the article, never mind made any 'accusations'. On that thread I simply stated that if, as some thought, the ICC were claiming O'Casey as an anti-nationalist then they were in error. Unlike you, I illustrated my point with quotes from O'Casey himself. You have again twisted what I said into something else.

ernie wrote:
Far from not answering the points raised, lurch - a supporter of the ICC- answers them all, but not to the liking of Ret and Guy who appear to be greatly offended by Lurch's and the ICC denunciation of the Easter 1916 up rising,

Illustrate where I express my 'great offence'; then, when you've failed, apologise for yet again making things up. As this thread goes on, you only prove further the criticisms of your misuse of history and facts and a tendency towards fantasy. You really are being a total idiot. You encourage people to read the O'Casey thread, ernie - I agree, it will illustrate the truth of your misrepresentations I describe above.

dave c
Offline
Joined: 4-09-07
Dec 31 2007 19:26

Revol:

Quote:
that's neither here nor there, GDID could be a 6 fingered leprechaun who keeps a pot of semtex at the end of a rainbow and it would have fuck all effect on the whether or not the IRA could be described as the US's proxy army.

So, Revol, we can take it that this means you do not reject the slogan of national liberation? wink

Beltov
Offline
Joined: 10-05-05
Dec 31 2007 20:40
revol68 wrote:
christ i remember one of the ICC loons mentioning the IRA being a proxy army of the US... It's pure and utter twaddle.

So it's out of the question that a small bunch of gangsters could be manipulated as pawns in a struggle between greater gangsters? That those waging struggles for national liberation are impervious to influence from the greater imperialist powers?

What's important is not to take the words of the ruling class at face value. There is no 'special relationship' between Britain and the US. They aren't in favour of peace, democracy, reconciliation, freedom and all that. They don't always mean what they say. They tell lies. They say one thing and do another. Look at the involvement of the British secret services on both sides.

If we passively take everything at face value then that's empiricism. So we have to pick over the bones and see what the bourgoisie are actually up to in practice and come up with an analysis from the perspective of the working class. As we have said erlier in this thread, the hard evidence of US influence over the IRA isn't going to be posted on the US government's website, but that doesn't mean we can't make something of what shreds do come to light.

B.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jan 1 2008 09:25

Beltov, either you really don't understand why people are pissed off with this line of argument, or as Ret says, you're incapable of honest debate.

"Making something out of very little" and presenting it as such is something people do all the time. Claiming with all certainty that something is the case with offhand comments in an article intended for publication, then smearing those who question its bass as nationalist, anti-working class etc. is beyond any semblance of reality. I think you need to consider the damage you all do to your beloved tradition by pushing this conspiracy nonsense.

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Jan 1 2008 14:32

So if the US actions towards Sinn Fein and the IRA throughout the 90s can't be explained as a conspiracy by the US bourgeoisie to undermine Britain, how else is it to be explained? Or is it simply the term "proxy army" that is being disputed?

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jan 1 2008 21:08

Demogorgon303, please read what's said in the original post again, slowly:

baboon wrote:
Around this time (and before) it was also useful for the US to step up its support for its proxy army in Ireland, the IRA, in its activities and bombing campaigns against Britain, as well as its support for organisations like the "Troops Out Movement".

That's it. No qualifier, no context, no references, no explanation, no elaboration. Just something which is at the very least extremely controversial presented as a mundane fact, in an almost throwaway sentence. Now, most people when caught out doing this would say "oh shit, that's some sloppy writing" - and either provide some references which back up their assertion, or rewrite the offending section to make it clear that this is 1. a theory 2. a theory of their own creation. Instead Baboon asks us whether we think states ever use their secret services as if this is the same as believing his specific claims, then the cavalry arrives:

Alf wrote:
Considering the deep political confusions that run rife through many articles accepted as such by libcom, I am somewhat taken aback by the reasons for rejecting Baboon's contribution as an article Not just the Wildcat one - at least two defending the patriotic resistance during world war two (in Italy and Greece) spring to mind. The question of whether the IRA was directly or indirectly used by the US is a matter of analysis, not a basic class position. And it certainly does not amount to a 'conspiracy theory'. You could perhaps have asked Baboon to elaborate on the USA/IRA link before rejecting it.

So there's an immediate conflation of 1. political analysis 2. presenting a conspiracy theory (and that's what it is, even if it's 100% right it's still a conspiracy theory) as a mundane fact. Then attempts to suggest that we've crossed class lines by not re-publishing those conspiracy theories while publishing articles that Alf disagrees with - attempts which get more and more surreal during the subsequent four pages.

If you can't see a problem with that, then I think you need to take a long hard look at yourselves.

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Jan 2 2008 11:27

Catch

I actually agree with you up to a point. But did you actually write back to baboon to tell him this? Or did it wait until he had to post a forum topic here?

Secondly, you appear to have rejected the entire article on the basis of one minor point which has nothing to do with its main thrust. No-one, so far, has provided a detailed critique. Moreover, when others such as myself pointed out that this point (i.e. that IRA was used by the US bourgeoisie to further an agenda against the UK), however "sloppily written", actually does have some evidence in favour of it, there's no engagement at all. Nor has there been a response to the articles Beltov quoted later.

As far as presenting conspiracy theory as mundane fact, we do this on the forum all the time. Do you believe that the bourgeoisie acts in a conscious way to keep the working class in its place or not? Do you think the various fractions of the bourgeoisie act in a conscious way to discredit, eliminate, outmanouvre their rivals? And yet, I consider this a mundane reality of capitalist society and I'd imagine you do too. Or maybe you don't?

No-one here feels obligated to provide proof that the US bourgeoisie deliberately armed Saddam with chemical weapons in the 80s, but in fact the actual hard evidence for them doing this consciously and deliberately is sketchy as I pointed out in one of my previous posts. I also doubt anyone here would question the the hypothesis that Hitler personally knew about the death camps but there is little historical evidence to prove this. Nor is it entirely straightforward to claim that the US funded the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. And yet I doubt many on these boards would disagree with these analyses.

And the ICC hasn't accused anyone of crossing class lines. They've asked individuals to clarify their position on whether the IRA is a proletarian or anti-proletarian force. This is a matter of establishing a common framework to a discussion - there is a vast difference between discussing the IRA with someone who thinks they are a proletarian force and someone who doesn't, don't you think? Even if this was some devious debating tactic on behalf of the ICC, it's easy to disarm - just answer the question, show them you're not a closet Provo as they must so obviously be implying and lo and behold their whole strategem dissolves and they look silly [/sarcasm].

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jan 2 2008 12:52
Quote:
I actually agree with you up to a point. But did you actually write back to baboon to tell him this? Or did it wait until he had to post a forum topic here?

No we didn't, but iirc his article was in moderation up to the point when he posted the forum topic - waiting for an e-mail to be sent and it actually be rejected. A couple of months ago we had almost 20 articles in moderation, many of which needed fixing up (formatting rather than content) before they could get out - it takes a while.

Quote:
Secondly, you appear to have rejected the entire article on the basis of one minor point which has nothing to do with its main thrust.

Considering Baboon and others tried to paint the Wildcat article as another conspiracy theory based on a single paragraph (although they at least say it's their analysis, and an unpopular one, rather than simply positing it as fact in that paragraph) when the rest was devoted to an analysis of anti-imperialism I'm not inclined to give this the time of day.

Quote:
No-one, so far, has provided a detailed critique.

I don't spend time providing detailed critiques of 911 truth articles when they get posted either. Including stuff like "proxy army" unqualified automatically discredits anything else said. Same as I'm sure you immediately switch off analysis of world capitalism if you see the words "illuminati".

Quote:
Moreover, when others such as myself pointed out that this point (i.e. that IRA was used by the US bourgeoisie to further an agenda against the UK), however "sloppily written", actually does have some evidence in favour of it, there's no engagement at all.

Because I have very little interest in discussing the IRA with you, about as much interest as Ret. What concerns me here is the dishonesty with which this article has been defended.

Quote:
As far as presenting conspiracy theory as mundane fact, we do this on the forum all the time. Do you believe that the bourgeoisie acts in a conscious way to keep the working class in its place or not? Do you think the various fractions of the bourgeoisie act in a conscious way to discredit, eliminate, outmanouvre their rivals? And yet, I consider this a mundane reality of capitalist society and I'd imagine you do too. Or maybe you don't?

I don't think everyone in the bourgeoisie is class conscious, no. Obviously some are, some aren't. Depends what you mean by the bourgeoisie as well of course, median-income public sector middle managers go on all kinds of toyotist training courses which teach them how to 'keep the working class in its place'. I don't think they're class conscious though, I know my old one really did believe in 'empowering staff' and 'participation' and all the rest of that shite. Overall a structural analysis of capitalism - and how individual capitalists tend to be as much objects of the law of value as the working class is of far more importance to me in explaining trends. I've said it before, I think this conspiratorial aspect of the ICCs analysis discredits much of what they have to say - in relation to the unions for example.

Quote:
And the ICC hasn't accused anyone of crossing class lines. They've asked individuals to clarify their position on whether the IRA is a proletarian or anti-proletarian force. This is a matter of establishing a common framework to a discussion - there is a vast difference between discussing the IRA with someone who thinks they are a proletarian force and someone who doesn't, don't you think?

This discussion was never about the IRA - so that was a diversionary tactic (and one that was called out by more people than me).

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Jan 2 2008 15:21

If the discussion wasn't about the IRA what was it about? I don't think there has been any dishonesty at all. Baboon suggested you leave the part about the IRA out. The Wildcat article certainly contained conspiratorial sections to it concerning the Gulf War and provided no references. It also posits the general idea that wars post-89 are not fought over the economic and strategic interests of fractions of the bourgeoisie but solely to keep down the working class. In other words, wars are "set-up" in order to smash workers. You published it.

As for dishonesty, baboon suggested you leave the offending paragraph out if you wanted to. I said the term "proxy army" is too strong and Alf said he should have provided references and/or clarified it as a hypothesis, etc. And you know as well as I do that there was a discussion about whether the IRA was in fact funded or supported by the US. People asked for more information, which I tried to do in my early posts. And it was because people appeared to dispute the position itself (not just the fact it hadn't been referenced properly) that the ICC asked people to clarify where they stood on the IRA so, to quote ernie, "to establish a basis to discuss on. Now given that we are agreed that the IRA are a nationalist gang, there is a common ground for asking the question of whether these gangsters would be of service in the wider imperialist struggles, especially in the context of the post 89 period. Now we can disagree on whether this is the case or not, but at least we will be discussing in the same framework".

In other words, they explained their motives for asking the question and, once the question was answered posted links to their own developed arguments on the question which have not been critiqued by anyone so far.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Jan 3 2008 00:35
Demagorg wrote:
So if the US actions towards Sinn Fein and the IRA throughout the 90s can't be explained as a conspiracy by the US bourgeoisie to undermine Britain, how else is it to be explained?

This conspiracy claim appears to be based more or less on one quote from the Daily Telegraph.

You also comment on a US case, in Nov 1982, of 5 IRA men acquitted of arms smuggling; by the nature of unprovable conspiracies, that prosecution could also be 'explained', for example, as an elaborate collaboration between the US & UK intelligence services to get the IRA busted for arms smuggling/and or facilitate infiltration of the US sections of Sinn Fein/IRA. Disprove that wild speculation.

Back on the 1st page of this thread David in Atlanta linked to http://www.ulsterflash.iofm.net/usa.htm - which reports a case in June 1982 where IRA gun-runners were busted by the FBI. So the case in Nov 82 Demagorg cites in support - where IRA defendents were acquitted, claiming in defence that their smuggling was sanctioned by the CIA - only proves further that the FBI was then pursuing the IRA with some intensity. Even if (and it's a big if) the claim that the CIA sanctioned the smuggling were true - that would suggest that there were conflicting policies towards the IRA between different sections of the US state and their security services. Quite a different interpretation from claiming it as evidence of a consistent 'proxy army' or anti-UK policy.

Speculation about the IRA as 'proxy army of the US' may have been planted amongst the conspiraloon 'community' as part of the counter-bluff to hide this secret activity. The conspiracy industry/'community' may well be used - by those same intelligence agencies being speculated about - as a place to introduce and circulate deliberate smokescreen misinformation, to be naively picked up and spouted as fact by those who think they are more 'in the know'. It's the nature of conspiracy theories that their potency and attraction lies in usually being unprovable. Acknowledging that is, obviously, different from saying that conspiracies don't exist.

Another point that the admins may have considered (or perhaps should) when rejecting the article - just how much room does this site want to give to a (semi)Leninist organisation for free self-publicity - particularly an org with its own website full of its output? Maybe the library is a step too far - after all, the arrangement is hardly reciprocal - more parasitic.

yoshomon
Offline
Joined: 19-06-07
Jan 3 2008 00:44

The same could be said of posting any articles authored by organizations. NEFAC etc etc all have their own websites as well.