A question - NEFAC and national liberation

1182 posts / 0 new
Last post
daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
Apr 23 2007 17:43

grin Genius! The Yank tells the two guys from countries with actual national liberation movements that their opinions are irrelevant. Amazing.

Next - lefties trie to persaude working class that unions are ace despite everything...

Come on, I didn't want this thread to go all infantile, so please. Let's be comradely and polite and shit.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Apr 23 2007 18:00
daniel wrote:
grin Genius! The Yank tells the two guys from countries with actual national liberation movements that their opinions are irrelevant. Amazing.

Next - lefties trie to persaude working class that unions are ace despite everything...

Come on, I didn't want this thread to go all infantile, so please. Let's be comradely and polite and shit.

So what? There's also plenty of anarchists from Turkey and Northern Ireland (and Spain, the Balkans, etc.) who are fairly sympathetic to national liberation struggles. What's your point?

Are you suggesting that one's national identity somehow excuses them from petty sectarianism and strawman arguments?

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Apr 23 2007 18:04
Quote:
There's also plenty of anarchists from Turkey and Northern Ireland (and Spain, the Balkans, etc.) who are fairly sympathetic to national liberation struggles. What's your point?
Quote:
In actual collective positions and practice, our group DOES NOT support nationalism or national liberation ideology.

What is our point? This is.

Devrim

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Apr 23 2007 18:09
Devrim wrote:
Quote:
There's also plenty of anarchists from Turkey and Northern Ireland (and Spain, the Balkans, etc.) who are fairly sympathetic to national liberation struggles. What's your point?
Quote:
In actual collective positions and practice, our group DOES NOT support nationalism or national liberation ideology.

What is our point? This is.

Devrim

So, your point is that even though our group doesn't support nationalism or national liberation ideology... you're gonna continue to harp on us about it anyways?

Here's a suggestion: why not save your devestating critiques for the groups that actually do support these things? Just a thought.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 23 2007 19:19
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
Devrim wrote:
Quote:
There's also plenty of anarchists from Turkey and Northern Ireland (and Spain, the Balkans, etc.) who are fairly sympathetic to national liberation struggles. What's your point?
Quote:
In actual collective positions and practice, our group DOES NOT support nationalism or national liberation ideology.

What is our point? This is.

Devrim

So, your point is that even though our group doesn't support nationalism or national liberation ideology... you're gonna continue to harp on us about it anyways?

Here's a suggestion: why not save your devestating critiques for the groups that actually do support these things? Just a thought.

Maybe if you took a harder line on individuals having thoughts and ideas you'd be a better anarchyist?

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 23 2007 19:32
Jack wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
Maybe if you took a harder line on individuals having thoughts and ideas you'd be a better anarchyist?

Okay then, so, serious question, you don't think members of a revolutionary organisation should have to abide by the positions of the group in public?

Genuine question.

I absolutely think that they should have to abide by the decisions of the group or disassociate. However, I'm fairly certain that NEFAC never passed a rule about publishing dissenting views. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong. So until Wayne straps on the AK and joins Hezbollah waving the NEFAC banner above him... I think publishing some articles isn't some breach of protocol. The level of internal debate and the safe-gaurding of dissenting opinion within organizations is what keeps them from devolving into leftist cultism. Collective discipline and responsability doesn't mean the suppression and repression of individual opinion.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 23 2007 19:52
Jack wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
I absolutely think that they should have to abide by the decisions of the group or disassociate. However, I'm fairly certain that NEFAC never passed a rule about publishing dissenting views. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong. So until Wayne straps on the AK and joins Hezbollah waving the NEFAC banner above him... I think publishing some articles isn't some breach of protocol. The level of internal debate and the safe-gaurding of dissenting opinion within organizations is what keeps them from devolving into leftist cultism. Collective discipline and responsability doesn't mean the suppression and repression of individual opinion.

People can have dissenting views. They can argue for them within the organisation. However, to think someone can just publish what they like is the kind of individualism usually confined to lifestylists or revol68.

Wayne can think whatever the fuck he likes, but to publish articles that obviously contradict the organisations line should mean expulsion. If I was to publish articles saying how shit the IWA was I'd expect to be expelled from SF, and I thought Platformists were meant to be the ones with strict discipline.

If the organization is ok with public dissention, and I don't know if they are or aren't, then why should they give a fuck what you or I think about it? Thats a choice they've collectively made and to compare that with lifestylism is offensive. Comparing anything to Revol is beyond the pale.

Discipline within an organization means that people follow the rules they've decided on. It doesn't mean following the rules some fuckwad not in the organization decided on.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 23 2007 20:17
Jack wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
If the organization is ok with public dissention, and I don't know if they are or aren't, then why should they give a fuck what you or I think about it? Thats a choice they've collectively made and to compare that with lifestylism is offensive. Comparing anything to Revol is beyond the pale.

Discipline within an organization means that people follow the rules they've decided on. It doesn't mean following the rules some fuckwad not in the organization decided on.

Well I'm hardly demanding they expel him - I'm simply supporting a defence of organisation. It's just fucking hypocrticial for NEFAC people to be all pro-organisation, and then allow someone who posts articles opposed to the A&P to remain in the organisation. I mean ffs, the 2 Wayne Price articles I've read didn't even stress it was a in personal capacity or a minority position.

And this shit "Thats a choice they've collectively made and to compare that with lifestylism is offensive" is just fucking mental - so what, if some Crimethinc headcases collectivly agree to dumpster dive it's not lifestylists shite?

Look, I think if an organization is ok with public dissention then public dissention from their members is fine. I would agree that they should say personal capacity if he also includes nefac in his signature. I don't know if he does or doesn't because Waynes articles are so tedious I couldn't imagine wanting to read them. He's also wrong on the national question for what its worth, but comparing theroetical arguments advocating critical support for national liberation struggles to dumpster diving is kind of stupid.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 23 2007 20:34
Jack wrote:

And "critical support" is just another term for "support, but I can't justify it".

True, but that wasn't my point and you know it.

daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
Apr 23 2007 20:35
Quote:
Discipline within an organization means that people follow the rules they've decided on. It doesn't mean following the rules some fuckwad not in the organization decided on.

Oi watch it, I've been very polite and humble and did not start this thread with an agenda. I was curious, I wanted an answer, case closed. Obviously not tho - the reaction is pretty weird what I've got. Denial of importance, trying to shrink the importance, name calling, dismissiveness towards questions - not very healthy signs. Fuck's sake.

For clarification. I'm NOT an ultra-leftist. I'm not a bloody lefty even - maybe that's the problem. i mean, support for national liberation is a cornerstone of the left ("critical support" in the case of the trots, which is bollocks). I'm just trying to figure out how national liberation has anything to do with working class liberation. Mr. Price talks about the "right" of nations and cultures to "self-determination" - that is bourgeois. I don't say that lightly.

If I was a member of NEFAC and I wrote articles on a prominent website saying how I think white people should have the right of "self-determination" in white-majority countries and should chuck out all non-whites, would I be expelled? I'd hope so! Likewise if I was going around pimping Third Worldist shite supporting murderous gangsters such as the FARC or Hizzbollocks or something.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 23 2007 20:37
Jack wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
True, but that wasn't my point and you know it.

It might not have been your point, but I still won there.

You can't win an internet argument. You can only debase yourself less.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 23 2007 20:49
daniel wrote:
Quote:
Discipline within an organization means that people follow the rules they've decided on. It doesn't mean following the rules some fuckwad not in the organization decided on.

Oi watch it, I've been very polite and humble and did not start this thread with an agenda. I was curious, I wanted an answer, case closed. Obviously not tho - the reaction is pretty weird what I've got. Denial of importance, trying to shrink the importance, name calling, dismissiveness towards questions - not very healthy signs. Fuck's sake.

For clarification. I'm NOT an ultra-leftist. I'm not a bloody lefty even - maybe that's the problem. i mean, support for national liberation is a cornerstone of the left ("critical support" in the case of the trots, which is bollocks). I'm just trying to figure out how national liberation has anything to do with working class liberation. Mr. Price talks about the "right" of nations and cultures to "self-determination" - that is bourgeois. I don't say that lightly.

If I was a member of NEFAC and I wrote articles on a prominent website saying how I think white people should have the right of "self-determination" in white-majority countries and should chuck out all non-whites, would I be expelled? I'd hope so! Likewise if I was going around pimping Third Worldist shite supporting murderous gangsters such as the FARC or Hizzbollocks or something.

I wasn't calling you a fuckwad. It was a generic deprecating term for anyone pontificating on an organization they aren't in a decision making role in really, including myself. I'm not a member of nefac. They should not care much about my criticisms of their organizations decisions.

National liberation has nothing to do with working class liberation. There's little agreement with Wayne's opinion on national liberation struggles. I'd imagine, but don't know, there would be little agreement with Wayne within NEFAC or they'd hold a position different than the one they have specifically against national liberation struggles.

The question at hand is really 'is it OK for a member of the organization to publically disagree?' And my opinion is that its consistent with organizational discipline if the organization has internally decided that it is ok with public dissent.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 23 2007 20:54
Jack wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
Jack wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
True, but that wasn't my point and you know it.

It might not have been your point, but I still won there.

You can't win an internet argument. You can only debase yourself less.

Is this your way of saying you critically support my victory?

I am certainly comfortable with decalring you a shining light in internet warrior society.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 23 2007 21:03
Jack wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
Jack wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
Jack wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
True, but that wasn't my point and you know it.

It might not have been your point, but I still won there.

You can't win an internet argument. You can only debase yourself less.

Is this your way of saying you critically support my victory?

I am certainly comfortable with decalring you a shining light in internet warrior society.

Can I be king of all internet warriors?

Is it ok with SolFed?

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Apr 23 2007 23:04
daniel wrote:
Quote:
Discipline within an organization means that people follow the rules they've decided on. It doesn't mean following the rules some fuckwad not in the organization decided on.

Oi watch it, I've been very polite and humble and did not start this thread with an agenda. I was curious, I wanted an answer, case closed. Obviously not tho - the reaction is pretty weird what I've got. Denial of importance, trying to shrink the importance, name calling, dismissiveness towards questions - not very healthy signs. Fuck's sake.

For clarification. I'm NOT an ultra-leftist. I'm not a bloody lefty even - maybe that's the problem. i mean, support for national liberation is a cornerstone of the left ("critical support" in the case of the trots, which is bollocks). I'm just trying to figure out how national liberation has anything to do with working class liberation. Mr. Price talks about the "right" of nations and cultures to "self-determination" - that is bourgeois. I don't say that lightly.

If I was a member of NEFAC and I wrote articles on a prominent website saying how I think white people should have the right of "self-determination" in white-majority countries and should chuck out all non-whites, would I be expelled? I'd hope so! Likewise if I was going around pimping Third Worldist shite supporting murderous gangsters such as the FARC or Hizzbollocks or something.

I don't know what to tell ya. If Wayne's rhetoric bothers you that much and as a concerned anarchist you think we should purge him, or have his typing fingers broken, or whatever it your asking of us to maintain tighter discipline in our ranks, you should write a formal letter to the federation and raise the issue.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 23 2007 23:33

Look I'm all for people being able to disagree in public, that's not such a big deal. But nationalism is such a basic, fundamental thing that it's not like disagreement about whether North-Eastern Anarchist should be twice a year or once a year! I don't get why people are being so evasive on this thread either - if it's not such a big deal then it should be struck from the As&Ps, if it is, then sorry but Wayne Price needs to go.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 24 2007 00:30

I hope Wayne dumps all your fucking tea in the harbor.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Apr 24 2007 01:23
Mike Harman wrote:
Look I'm all for people being able to disagree in public, that's not such a big deal. But nationalism is such a basic, fundamental thing that it's not like disagreement about whether North-Eastern Anarchist should be twice a year or once a year! I don't get why people are being so evasive on this thread either - if it's not such a big deal then it should be struck from the As&Ps, if it is, then sorry but Wayne Price needs to go.

Well, considering Wayne would argue that he isn't a nationalist, doesn't support nationalism, and hasn't contradicted our A&Ps I suspect it might be a little more involved than that. But again, since no one from within NEFAC has yet raised the issue or started any proceedings against him I would invite any of the apparently more politically astute comrades from Libcom to write the federation with their concerns and suggestions on how to deal with the situation.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 24 2007 01:42

The RednBlack Coats are coming!

throwhen
Offline
Joined: 19-12-06
Apr 24 2007 02:14
Jack wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
I absolutely think that they should have to abide by the decisions of the group or disassociate. However, I'm fairly certain that NEFAC never passed a rule about publishing dissenting views. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong. So until Wayne straps on the AK and joins Hezbollah waving the NEFAC banner above him... I think publishing some articles isn't some breach of protocol. The level of internal debate and the safe-gaurding of dissenting opinion within organizations is what keeps them from devolving into leftist cultism. Collective discipline and responsability doesn't mean the suppression and repression of individual opinion.

People can have dissenting views. They can argue for them within the organisation. However, to think someone can just publish what they like is the kind of individualism usually confined to lifestylists or revol68.

Wayne can think whatever the fuck he likes, but to publish articles that obviously contradict the organisations line should mean expulsion. If I was to publish articles saying how shit the IWA was I'd expect to be expelled from SF, and I thought Platformists were meant to be the ones with strict discipline.

so is it ok if I expell dissidents from my union?

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 24 2007 02:15
throwhen wrote:
Jack wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
I absolutely think that they should have to abide by the decisions of the group or disassociate. However, I'm fairly certain that NEFAC never passed a rule about publishing dissenting views. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong. So until Wayne straps on the AK and joins Hezbollah waving the NEFAC banner above him... I think publishing some articles isn't some breach of protocol. The level of internal debate and the safe-gaurding of dissenting opinion within organizations is what keeps them from devolving into leftist cultism. Collective discipline and responsability doesn't mean the suppression and repression of individual opinion.

People can have dissenting views. They can argue for them within the organisation. However, to think someone can just publish what they like is the kind of individualism usually confined to lifestylists or revol68.

Wayne can think whatever the fuck he likes, but to publish articles that obviously contradict the organisations line should mean expulsion. If I was to publish articles saying how shit the IWA was I'd expect to be expelled from SF, and I thought Platformists were meant to be the ones with strict discipline.

so is it ok if I expell dissidents from my union?

Yes because workers aren't in the proletarian camp.

throwhen
Offline
Joined: 19-12-06
Apr 24 2007 02:24

fuck i hate brits

throwhen
Offline
Joined: 19-12-06
Apr 24 2007 02:26
thugarchist wrote:
throwhen wrote:
Jack wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
I absolutely think that they should have to abide by the decisions of the group or disassociate. However, I'm fairly certain that NEFAC never passed a rule about publishing dissenting views. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong. So until Wayne straps on the AK and joins Hezbollah waving the NEFAC banner above him... I think publishing some articles isn't some breach of protocol. The level of internal debate and the safe-gaurding of dissenting opinion within organizations is what keeps them from devolving into leftist cultism. Collective discipline and responsability doesn't mean the suppression and repression of individual opinion.

People can have dissenting views. They can argue for them within the organisation. However, to think someone can just publish what they like is the kind of individualism usually confined to lifestylists or revol68.

Wayne can think whatever the fuck he likes, but to publish articles that obviously contradict the organisations line should mean expulsion. If I was to publish articles saying how shit the IWA was I'd expect to be expelled from SF, and I thought Platformists were meant to be the ones with strict discipline.

so is it ok if I expell dissidents from my union?

Yes because workers aren't in the proletarian camp.

if i said the same shit about my organization that these fucking brits are saying i'd be called a trot or maoist or whatever.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 24 2007 02:28
throwhen wrote:
fuck i hate brits

Notice Jack wants to be king of the internet warriors?

Whats SolFeds position on n30-feudalism?

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Apr 24 2007 03:34
daniel wrote:
I remember reading on here two North American nutters calling themselves platformists who came and ranted on like a pair of stalinists about how ace Hugo Chavez, North Korea, the FARC, etc. were. Wow! Maybe, because nowadays the leninists have pretty much vanished, the types that would join those groups are calling themselves anarchists. A very scary thought!

One of those two was exaggerating his position somewhat and being a devil's advocate to some extent, though he said some pretty stupid crap about el libertario being a CIA front or whatever, while the other one was just a plain old maoist.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 24 2007 08:33
revol68 wrote:
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
Mike Harman wrote:
Look I'm all for people being able to disagree in public, that's not such a big deal. But nationalism is such a basic, fundamental thing that it's not like disagreement about whether North-Eastern Anarchist should be twice a year or once a year! I don't get why people are being so evasive on this thread either - if it's not such a big deal then it should be struck from the As&Ps, if it is, then sorry but Wayne Price needs to go.

Well, considering Wayne would argue that he isn't a nationalist, doesn't support nationalism, and hasn't contradicted our A&Ps I suspect it might be a little more involved than that. But again, since no one from within NEFAC has yet raised the issue or started any proceedings against him I would invite any of the apparently more politically astute comrades from Libcom to write the federation with their concerns and suggestions on how to deal with the situation.

So do NEFAC agree with Wayne Price that there is a difference between Nationalism and National Liberarion? Because that is the dubious piece of driftwood he clings to.

You should denounce them regardless.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 24 2007 08:47
revol68 wrote:
Like i've said i'm no platformist and don't really care what they do with Wayne Price, I just want to know what other people in NEFAC make of his dubious claims about national liberation because at the moment it seems that some argue that they allow people to be in disagreement with the NEFAC position but then when pressed they say he isn't actually in disagreement.

I argued that if its acceptable to publically disagree as an individual then it isn't a break of organizational discipline to do so. I'm not a member of nefac, I don't know if there is or isn't such a prohibition and I don't read Waynes articles.

throwhen
Offline
Joined: 19-12-06
Apr 24 2007 08:59
Jack wrote:
throwhen wrote:
so is it ok if I expell dissidents from my union?

NEFAC isn't a union. It's a revolutionary organisation.

so...

it's an organization that is aimed at fighting capitalism. it needs organization, structure and discipline to do that.

are you going to actually argue that my union is less important than NEFAC?

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Apr 24 2007 09:07
throwhen wrote:
Jack wrote:
throwhen wrote:
so is it ok if I expell dissidents from my union?

NEFAC isn't a union. It's a revolutionary organisation.

so...

it's an organization that is aimed at fighting capitalism. it needs organization, structure and discipline to do that.

are you going to actually argue that my union is less important than NEFAC?

Without going on about unions, I think that it is quite obvious that a union is based on a person's employment, whereas a political organisation is based upon a person's adherence to political positions. This makes them quite different.

Devrim

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 24 2007 09:39

What the fuck is a meta discussion?

Topic locked