A question - NEFAC and national liberation

1182 posts / 0 new
Last post
thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 24 2007 09:46
Jack wrote:
throwhen wrote:
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?

What has relative levels of importance have to do with anything?

You don't join a union because you agree with its politics - you that's exactly the reason you join a revolutionary organisation.

Some people become part of a union because of its program. There are union programs that have tighter discipline than any 'revolutionary' group y'all can wave your black flags at. They don't ask people to join because of their workplace. They build a movement in targeted industries.

When the prison doors are opened, the real dragon will fly out.

Beeeyaaaatch.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Apr 24 2007 10:18

Generally in English different words mean different things - isn't that obvious?

In any case all you have to do is look at the nefac site, from the Aims and Principles

Quote:
National Liberation

We do not support the ideology of national liberation movements, which claims that there are common interests held between the working class and the native ruling class in the face of foreign domination. Although we support working class struggles against political and economic imperialism, racism, genocide and colonization, we are opposed to the creation of a new ruling class. We believe that the defeat of imperialism will only come about through a social revolution waged against both the imperialists and the local ruling class. This social revolution will have to spread across national borders. We further reject all forms of nationalism as this only serves
to redefine divisions in the international working class. The working class has no country, and national boundaries will be eliminated. We must encourage and develop international solidarity which will one day lay the basis for a global social revolution.

http://nefac.net/node/104

In somewhat different terms to those Wayne uses this seems to allow for an opposition to imperialism and a support for (working class) struggles against economic imperialism, genocide and colonization. It can certainly be argued that national liberation means or at least includes 'struggles against economic imperialism, genocide and colonization'. It's not a term I tend to use myself because I think it confuses rather than clarifies but from what I've read of Waynes writings I think its clear he is not using it as another word for nationalism - in fact he has explicitly said this on a number of occasions so there is a lack of honesty in the suggestion he might be.

Of course for those who want to avoid struggles against imperialism I can see the political reasons why they make the claim that any such struggles amount to nationalism. That is more acceptable then trying to argue outright that imperialism is either neutral or in the interests of the working class. While sections of the left have argued that in the past today the fashion seems to be to try and turn both imperialism and resistance to imperalism into a generic 'nationalism' add an equals sign and proceed to vigorously and repeatedly slander those who don't accept this logic. Pretty much as we are seeing here. Campaigns of slander are hard to deal with and when you keep getting hit by them you find yourself unwilling to post on such topics as you know that you'll then have to spend days wading through crap. Which of course is the intention of such campaigns in the first place, they simply wear people down without the necessity of constructing a coherent political argument - repetitive pointing and name calling is enough.

All that aside it is up to NEFAC to decide who is and who is not a member. Interferring in the internal decisions of another organisation in the manner we see on this thread makes little sense if you want fraternal relations with that organisation. I see can why Devrim or Revol would not be bothered - they want to recruit for their respective one true churches but I don't get why an AF member would be engaged in this not only here but also apparently on Anarkismo.net. Political critique and discussion is one thing - demanding the expulsion of a member of another organisation is quite another.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 24 2007 11:03

Just to avoid Wayne Price being singled out, it's not just him. This piece by WEB from NEFAC NYC is nationalist as well:

Quote:
L&R's support for [national liberation] struggles represented a real advance in the anarchist movement.

http://libcom.org/library/demise-love-rage-what-happened-nefac

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Apr 24 2007 11:32

I'm curious as to who the AF member is. Is it Daniel? Otherwise I don't know. The problem with these boards is that everyone feels they have a right to say anything about everything. To some extent by participating in Libcom you accept that they have that right.

Please note I am not expressing an opinion on whether he should be chucked out. All I insist is that the issue of national liberation is important and needs discussion. What I find the hardest part of it is trying to untangle struggles in areas of the world that are obviously dominated by an imperialist power (rather than everywhere else where it is less obvious). How do we manage to support, for example workers in Palestine fighting against the wall and yet oppose the reactionary clericalism and nationalism of hezbollah?

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Apr 24 2007 11:50

I'm presuming this is Daniel - I'm also presuming that he is the person who has been posting under another name onto a Wayne Price article on Anarkismo where he is not far off trolling. Either assumption could be wrong but probably better to state it so it can be cleared up.

knightrose wrote:
All I insist is that the issue of national liberation is important and needs discussion.

I've nothing against this at all - indeed I agree. I do think though that demands for other organistions to expel members are not going to be good for relations - at worst they can appear to be trying to provoke a split.

knightrose wrote:
What I find the hardest part of it is trying to untangle struggles in areas of the world that are obviously dominated by an imperialist power (rather than everywhere else where it is less obvious). How do we manage to support, for example workers in Palestine fighting against the wall and yet oppose the reactionary clericalism and nationalism of hezbollah?

I think this is the central issue and I'm concerned that the common method in these parts of reducing all such discussion to being for or against nationalism is not only dishonest but quite counter productive in that it substitutes simple slogans for complexity. There was a very interesting exchange on Anarkismo during the Lebanon war between Lebanese anarchists who in effect supported Hezbollah and those who supported the Falagangist side. This once more confirmed to me once more that simplistic slogan may sound good in times of peace but are no preparation at all for times of war. The result is that even anarchists can line up with their 'own' side because they never developed an analysis beyond a rhetorical one and the pressure of events overtakes them. "Nationalism is like bad, OK' doesn't cut the mustard.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Apr 24 2007 11:58

If it is daniel, then he is not an AF member as he is living in the states. I got the impression Daniel was thinking of joining NEFAC and his question arose from it.

For what it's worth, in Manchester we attend a picket at Marks and Spencer from time to time. When we do we try to distance ourselves from the FRFI types there. That's helped because one of our wider circle regularly attends and has a very distinctive display on show.

The issue of nationalism is simple. It weakens and divides the working class. It is similar to when workers sturggle within unions. If they allow the bureaucracy to retain control then they are inevitably defeated. The dififculty is doing anything about it!

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 24 2007 11:58
JoeBlack2 wrote:
"Nationalism is like bad, OK' doesn't cut the mustard.

What a useful input to the discussion, Joe roll eyes

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Apr 24 2007 12:12
knightrose wrote:
If it is daniel, then he is not an AF member as he is living in the states. I got the impression Daniel was thinking of joining NEFAC and his question arose from it.

My apologies, the confusion arose because an AF member called Daniel spoke on a panel with Wayne at the New York anarchist bookfair and as this arose right afterwards I put two and two together to get 5. I'm glad I spoke up though so this could be corrected as I think I'm not the only one who may have jumped to that conclusion.

knightrose wrote:
The issue of nationalism is simple. It weakens and divides the working class. It is similar to when workers sturggle within unions. If they allow the bureaucracy to retain control then they are inevitably defeated.

But on this level of simplicity any anarchist including Wayne can agree. It would be better if workers were never nationalists, it would be better if workers did not 'allow the bureaucracy to retain control'. But we need to get beyond wishing that these things could happen as a result of a few slogans.

I also think that this automatic denouncing of any discussion of imperialism as nationalist is often a camoflage for positions that are at least sympatheic to big nation nationalism. Some of the keenest opponents of 'nationalism' on here are people who defend footballs fans singing extreme (British) nationalist songs, defend the wearing of the imperialist poppy, refer to Ireland as a province of London, excuse membership of their armed forces as due to circumstances but call those of others 'murdering bastards', oppose the use of minority languages etc. That strikes me as at the very least a chronic poverty of analysis.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 24 2007 12:17
throwhen wrote:
so is it ok if I expell dissidents from my union?

Says it all really.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Apr 24 2007 15:03
Joe Black2 wrote:
Campaigns of slander

I get the idea that paranoia is setting in.

Joe Black2 wrote:
but I don't get why an AF member would be engaged in this not only here but also apparently on Anarkismo.net.
Joe Black2 wrote:
I'm presuming this is Daniel - I'm also presuming that he is the person who has been posting under another name onto a Wayne Price article on Anarkismo where he is not far off trolling.

Yes, definetly it is. Two people criticise the politics of supporting national liberation, and it is a `campaign of slander`.

What may have escaped your notice though is that some people do think that this is an important political point, and that the position held by the `Platformists` is anti-working class.

Joe Black2 wrote:
Political critique and discussion is one thing

But when it is against the Platformists it is `a campaign of slander`.

Well, I can only speak for members of our organisation, Joe but all we have done in our ` campaign of slander` is argued for our politics on the site. We also posted on this issue on one thread on Anarkismo, which specifically invited the contributions of Left Communist groups from the Middle East.

Then there is this suggestion of dishonesty that we have turned Wayne Price`s support for national liberation into a support for nationalism.

JoeBlack2 wrote:
from what I've read of Waynes writings I think its clear he is not using it [national liberation]as another word for nationalism - in fact he has explicitly said this on a number of occasions so there is a lack of honesty in the suggestion he might be.

To be quite clear, we think that support for national liberation is support for nationalism. When we have argued over this we have always made this very clear.

On to the content of this campaign of slander:

JoeBlack2 wrote:
Campaigns of slander are hard to deal with and when you keep getting hit by them you find yourself unwilling to post on such topics as you know that you'll then have to spend days wading through crap. Which of course is the intention of such campaigns in the first place, they simply wear people down without the necessity of constructing a coherent political argument - repetitive pointing and name calling is enough.

I think that we have constructed a coherent political argument. Now, you may disagree with it, but it doesn`t make it non-coherent. And we have argued for our politics. Just as you have argued for yours.

Let`s talk about slander, and dishonesty.

JoeBlack2 wrote:
Of course for those who want to avoid struggles against imperialism I can see the political reasons why they make the claim that any such struggles amount to nationalism. That is more acceptable then trying to argue outright that imperialism is either neutral or in the interests of the working class. While sections of the left have argued that in the past today the fashion seems to be to try and turn both imperialism and resistance to imperalism into a generic 'nationalism' add an equals sign and proceed to vigorously and repeatedly slander those who don't accept this logic.

You, Joe, of course know where the origins of the `internationalists` position can be traced from. Are you really suggesting that this is the sum total of the practical, and theoretical work of the communist left since the early 20`s, and that we really think that imperialism is `neutral or in the interests of the working class`?

Joe Black2 wrote:
I also think that this automatic denouncing of any discussion of imperialism as nationalist is often a camoflage for positions that are at least sympatheic to big nation nationalism. Some of the keenest opponents of 'nationalism' on here are people who defend footballs fans singing extreme (British) nationalist songs, defend the wearing of the imperialist poppy, refer to Ireland as a province of London, excuse membership of their armed forces as due to circumstances but call those of others 'murdering bastards', oppose the use of minority languages etc. That strikes me as at the very least a chronic poverty of analysis.

Ah, amalgamation... We certainly haven`t argued any of these things (just for the record I did argue that we shouldn`t publish in minority languages of which every speaker can speak the majority language. That is different from `oppos[ing] the use of minority languages. But, hey, why not tar everyone who disagrees with you with the same brush.

Joe Black2 wrote:
All that aside it is up to NEFAC to decide who is and who is not a member. Interferring in the internal decisions of another organisation in the manner we see on this thread makes little sense if you want fraternal relations with that organisation. I see can why Devrim or Revol would not be bothered - they want to recruit for their respective one true churches

Also for the record on the point of Wayne Price being expelled, I did ask whether NEFAC members have to act according to the aims, and principles. I don`t think that we are trying to recruit NEFAC members from the US to our organisation in Turkey, and I certainly don`t care about NEFAC`s internal organisation.

Finally, I would like to comment on this:

Joe Black2 wrote:
There was a very interesting exchange on Anarkismo during the Lebanon war between Lebanese anarchists who in effect supported Hezbollah and those who supported the Falagangist side. This once more confirmed to me once more that simplistic slogan may sound good in times of peace but are no preparation at all for times of war. The result is that even anarchists can line up with their 'own' side because they never developed an analysis beyond a rhetorical one and the pressure of events overtakes them. "Nationalism is like bad, OK' doesn't cut the mustard.

I think that this confirms our analysis. I haven`t read this thread, but it appears to me from what you have said that you have two groups of anarchists arguing over which faction of the ruling class to support.

Devrim

daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
Apr 24 2007 15:34

Joe Black,
I am not a member of the AF, I am in fact the guy what's been posting on Anarkismo.net under the name "Ned Ludd", I'm not slandering anyone, I did not troll Wayne price on Anarkismo and have no idea what you're on about. You hinted that my internationalism was really just a front for "big nation nationalism" or some bollocks. calm down, mister, i'm just asking a few polite questions. I can be very rude in real life and make sure I try extra, extra hard to stay polite and civil on the internet when trying to have a serious discussion. I'm not a sectarian or nothing, I think NEFAC is ace, but not above criticism or something. Neither is Wayne Price. Neither is anybody.

I don't mean to offend, I just wanted a few answers and some clarification.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Apr 24 2007 15:34
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.

Well, I do happen to think that it is possible to support "working class struggles against political and economic imperialism, racism, genocide and colonization" without supporting a nationalist agenda, so depending on how lazy I am with my rhetoric at a given moment... yeah, sure.

I also make a distinction between fighting for everyday working class reforms as part of a longer term revolutionary praxis and "reformism".

But then again, being outside of the "proletarian camp" what the fuck do I know?

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Apr 24 2007 15:47
revol68 wrote:
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
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.

Well, I do happen to think that it is possible to support "working class struggles against political and economic imperialism, racism, genocide and colonization" without supporting a nationalist agenda, so depending on how lazy I am with my rhetoric at a given moment... yeah, sure.

I also make a distinction between fighting for everyday working class reforms as part of a longer term revolutionary praxis and "reformism".

But then again, being outside of the "proletarian camp" what the fuck do I know?

So you are saying that the only difference between Wayne Price and your position is semantics?

I just said my position. Take it however you want.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Apr 24 2007 16:01
daniel wrote:
I am not a member of the AF,

Yeah sorry for this confusion - I think there is an AFer by the same name in the US at the moment who had recently done a meeting with Wayne (read this online so I may have got details wrong). They when I saw your posts here and connected them with the ones on Anarkismo I thought you were the same as that guy. A bit silly of me to assume there was only one anarchist called Daniel so apologies again to you and to the AF.

daniel wrote:
I am in fact the guy what's been posting on Anarkismo.net under the name "Ned Ludd", I'm not slandering anyone, I did not troll Wayne price on Anarkismo and have no idea what you're on about.

Trolling includes bringing in issues that have little or no connection to a particular piece in order to have your favourite argument. The argument you are making on Anarkismo is pretty marginal to the actual article your posting under. This and the fact I assume you were someone he'd met doing some anonymous sniping made me compare it to trolling.

daniel wrote:
You hinted that my internationalism was really just a front for "big nation nationalism" or some bollocks.

That wasn't in reference to you but to other people posting on the thread, the examples I citied included ones I've pointed out to some of them in the past. I am very suspicious of the political reasons why people try and simplify both imperialism and anti-imperialism down to 'nationalism'. Likewise I am suspicious of those who try and monopolise terms like internationalism and communism to mean just them and their mates in the 'proletarian' camp. Indeed I find the whole semantic claiming and imposing of terms typical to this thread as being a major barrier to any real clarification.

I should also say I wasn't referring to Devrim either. I consider the leftist communist postion to be a fairly useless analysis that like Lenin's imperialism sought to find a simple explanation as to why Europes workers had got sucked into world war one despite the advance promise of a general strike to stop the war. (A warning against internationalist slogans being an answer in themselves). Its a bit like the 'iron law of wages' or 'decadence theory' or any of the rest of the ideological baggage that leftist communists carry around. It all sounds convincing from inside its own logic but from the outside fails to actually explain very much at all.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Apr 24 2007 16:26
revol68 wrote:
that's not a position it's an utter cop out!

Let's take an example, in relation to the civil rights movement, it was quite possible to support struggles against sectarianism and police brutality, without supporting national liberation or the myth of 'national self determination' as loved by Wayne Price. Most of the kids who fought the Battle of the Bogside had very little time for 'Irish self determination' or the ending of the british rule in ireland. What they cared about was their day to day experiance of discrimination, poverty and policing. If I took your footloose approach to concepts I could try and twist that into 'national liberation' (whilst quietly slipping in some shit about national self determination). Now why I would want to do so would be strange? I could see why the WSM would wish to, afterall they've always looked towards the left republican millieu but why would NEFAC? Would it be the pervasion of third worldist bullshit within the North America radical scene?

I'm sorry, what's the arguement again? I don't disagree with anything you say here, however, it just so happens that many people would indeed consider this "national liberation" and "national self-determination". So yeah, it is largely a problem of semantics.

Quote:
Are you saying you don't have a fundamental problem with this:
Wayne Price wrote:
And anarchists should support the right of nations to self-determination, which is NOT the same as supporting nationalism

As it reads I don't agree with it. But then again, I have no idea where you pulled it from or what the original context was.

Quote:
Between this sort of shit and your position on the unions some platformists are just leninists in libertarian clothing.

Yeah, yeah... heard it all before...

Good thing there are groups like Organise! who have the proper line for people to follow otherwise the movement would truly be fucked.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Apr 24 2007 16:32
Devrim wrote:
I am not arguing against Platformism, or even anarchism as a whole here. I think that there can be, and are revolutionary currents within anarchism. I just don't think that the Platformist trend today is one of them.

Devrim

So back to this -- which currents within contemporary anarchism are you planning on inviting on your proletarian camping trip?

daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
Apr 24 2007 16:43

Joe Black - I'm sure I share many of your criticisms of left communism. In fact, I think Devrim is clearly demonstrating some of those problems. Devrim talks about the "platformist current" as if it were monolithic, supporting national liberation and trade unions. There are a huge variety of platformist-influenced groups - from the late Class War Federation to the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation. The AF strongly opposes national liberation, I believe, as well as the trades unions. And what on earth is the "proletarian camp" - some carny thing or what? wink

Also, I don't remember "demanding" that Wayne Price be expelled. That's none of my fucking business, is it? I'm not in NEFAC. I wanted to know about how you interpret "theoretical unity"

right at the beginning I wrote:
Is NEFAC really true to that basic, basic platformist principle? How do you justify having a member openly supporting national liberation contrary to the Aims and Principles?

I think I've a perfect right to ask questions. I don't demand nothing, and nobody did. So it's just evasive to say "mind your own business, this is our group and we can do whatever we want."

Again, let's keep it polite and comradely. We're all in the same boat here, even if we don't all know what camp we're in... I'm sure the proletarian camp can still go and roast marshmellows with the petite-bourgeois camp. grin

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Apr 24 2007 16:44

Joe Black wrote:

Quote:
I also think that this automatic denouncing of any discussion of imperialism as nationalist is often a camoflage for positions that are at least sympatheic to big nation nationalism. Some of the keenest opponents of 'nationalism' on here are people who defend footballs fans singing extreme (British) nationalist songs, defend the wearing of the imperialist poppy, refer to Ireland as a province of London, excuse membership of their armed forces as due to circumstances but call those of others 'murdering bastards', oppose the use of minority languages etc. That strikes me as at the very least a chronic poverty of analysis.

Joe, I'm quite shocked really. Who defends singing British nationalist songs at football?? Or wears a poppy or any of that other shit?
That's not to say some of us aren't a bit partisan when it comes to soccer or rugby or cricket, I suspect.

daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
Apr 24 2007 16:45

Oh damn, I've been beats to the "proletarian camp" jokes by a bloody sepo!

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Apr 24 2007 16:46
MJ wrote:
Devrim wrote:
I am not arguing against Platformism, or even anarchism as a whole here. I think that there can be, and are revolutionary currents within anarchism. I just don't think that the Platformist trend today is one of them.

Devrim

So back to this -- which currents within contemporary anarchism are you planning on inviting on your proletarian camping trip?

I think if you have more than five members you're automatically disqualified.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 24 2007 17:46
Mike Harman wrote:
throwhen wrote:
so is it ok if I expell dissidents from my union?

Says it all really.

Don't be a dumbass deliberately misinterpreting the intent of the question to score anarchy discussion points.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 24 2007 18:32

No that would be terrible.

A few people answered already but I will if you want.

1. Political groups have aims and principles which people sign up to and form a basis of membership and co-operation, we think Wayne Price has breached them, NEFAC posters here think he hasn't. Dissension within organisations is fine and healthy. However, if it's on fundamental questions then usually it should result in either a) the position of the organisation changing 2. dissenters splitting from the organisation 3. expulsion - could involve internal fractions along the way as well. Otherwise there's very little point in the organisation having any political principles at all.

2. Unions don't have these, like Devrim says membership is based on employment. I'm a member of a union but I have massive disagreements with both the individual union and unions in general. I don't think that qualifies me for expulsion though, however scabbing or becoming a manager ought to (it doesn't though in my union, they're completely fine with managers and scabs at an organisational level because they're cunts).

3.Other breaches of union rules might also qualify for expulsion - embezzlement, discrimination stuff like that that's the same with any company or non-profit organisation.

4. "dissidents" suggests people opposed to the union leadership and stuff like that. In most cases I'd say no it's not alright for the union leadership to expel people who disagree with them - in the same way that I think leadership expulsions of left factions within Trot organisations isn't very nice either, especially combined with minimal information, let alone decisions making by the membership. That doesn't mean it won't happen or that the 'dissidents' aren't better off out of those organisations though.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 24 2007 18:35
Mike Harman wrote:
No that would be terrible.

A few people answered already but I will if you want.

1. Political groups have aims and principles which people sign up to and form a basis of membership and co-operation, we think Wayne Price has breached them, NEFAC posters here think he hasn't. Dissension within organisations is fine and healthy. However, if it's on fundamental questions then usually it should result in either a) the position of the organisation changing 2. dissenters splitting from the organisation 3. expulsion - could involve internal fractions along the way as well. Otherwise there's very little point in the organisation having any political principles at all.

2. Unions don't have these, like Devrim says membership is based on employment. I'm a member of a union but I have massive disagreements with both the individual union and unions in general. I don't think that qualifies me for expulsion though, however scabbing or becoming a manager ought to (it doesn't though in my union, they're completely fine with managers and scabs at an organisational level because they're cunts).

3.Other breaches of union rules might also qualify for expulsion - embezzlement, discrimination stuff like that that's the same with any company or non-profit organisation.

4. "dissidents" suggests people opposed to the union leadership and stuff like that. In most cases I'd say no it's not alright for the union leadership to expel people who disagree with them - in the same way that I think leadership expulsions of left factions within Trot organisations isn't very nice either, especially combined with minimal information, let alone decisions making by the membership. That doesn't mean it won't happen or that the 'dissidents' aren't better off out of those organisations though.

Chuck's perspective on his union is that it is closer to your description of a political organization than it is to your description of a union.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 24 2007 19:13
throwhen wrote:
flints position is whichever way is girlfriend can fit the strap on up his ass.

If you want to keep your girlfriend, you'd best learn to compromise with her freakiness.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 24 2007 19:15
Flint wrote:
throwhen wrote:
flints position is whichever way is girlfriend can fit the strap on up his ass.

If you want to keep your girlfriend, you'd best learn to compromise with her freakiness.

What if you never compromise, don't want her but she's got choke hold on you and you can't get away?

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 24 2007 19:15

Then like it is with trot groups I'd either be more likely to be on the side of those getting expelled, or not give much of a shit. Only current exception I can think of is if the IWW expels those SSP members. This is off topic though, and you and chuck are already on my shit list.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 24 2007 19:21
Mike Harman wrote:
Then like it is with trot groups I'd either be more likely to be on the side of those getting expelled, or not give much of a shit. Only current exception I can think of is if the IWW expels those SSP members. This is off topic though, and you and chuck are already on my shit list.

But people calling for Waynes expulsion from across the pond is on topic?

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 24 2007 19:21
Devrim wrote:
Last year I wrote that the only thing that distinguished Platformism from Trotskyism was the rhetoric, and their positions on parliamentarianism. When I suggested that this would be the next think to be questioned, I was mocked. I think that Rebel Worker has made my point for me

Maybe you should visit NEFAC's actual website sometime, rather than attributing to NEFAC as a whole a position that an individual member expresses on a discussion forum as his minority position that is not supported by the organization.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 24 2007 19:28
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
The closest we have come is, crime of crimes, we raised some money for RAWA in Afghanistan once (which went towards building self-managed schools for young women) and we have critically supported indigenous struggles in our region. That's it. Everyone got it now?

I make NEFAC do horrible things.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 24 2007 19:32
daniel wrote:
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!

Actually, we'd beat the crap out of you.

Topic locked