A question - NEFAC and national liberation

1182 posts / 0 new
Last post
thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
May 16 2007 20:33

This was all very hilarious btw.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
May 16 2007 20:42
JoeBlack2 wrote:
You must have been aware of this so I can only say you are a right scum bag to resort to such a cheap trick of trimming a quotation to make it appear to say the opposite of what it in fact says.

I am sorry that I am not able to be as polite as you are, Joe.

JoeBlack2 wrote:
Wow Devrim, your dishonesty knows no limits - you did not of course include a link to the comment you quote from or any context. It's actually a comment from a history of Love and Rage at http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=5352

Is where the comment comes from relevant in any way?

Quote:
I present the long quotation below so people can understand just what an underhand trick you tried to pull here, incidentally from this its also clear that this generalised example can't be mistaken as being about Lebanon as it was Israeli rather than US bombers that did the bombing there.

I don't see that I have pulled any 'underhand trick' here. Nor, do I think that the fact that the article refers to Iraq rather than to Lebanon is of much relevance. Are you suggesting that there is some qualative difference between the struggles in Iraq, and Lebanon, which means that you can support an armed response to American invasion in Iraq, but not one to Israeli invasion in Lebanon?

Quote:
And far from 'a call for an inter class front of national defence' its the opposite. It's actually the opening of an explanation as to why such fronts seem attractive that ends with "On that basis we can say 'well why not use the power you have developed to fight the imperialists to take over society - if you need the bankers money why strike a deal with him when you have the power to simply take it'?"

Yes, a simply more left wing version of the argument. The war of national defence is presented as something that can be run by the working class in there own interests.

I wrote before:

Devrim wrote:
I think, however, that it does include Joe Black, and a large body of opinion within 'Platformism'. (emphasis added)

I then wrote:

Quote:
I may have misread you Joe, and if so I would apologise, but I don't think so.

So let's state the question very clearly; Do you support armed resistance to an Israeli invasion of Lebanon?

The question is still there, Joe.

Of course you could continue to accuse people of dishonesty, or you could just answer it.

Devrim

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
May 16 2007 20:56
JoeBlack2 wrote:
Seeing as you gave it anyway can I ask the obvious question - do you follow your position through to its logical conclusion of being indifferent to the occupation of Iraq. If not, why not?
JoeBlack2 wrote:
BTW ToJ I'd be interested in your response to my question as I think you'll probably try and give an honest non evasive one. I'm not ambushing you - I'm quite interested in hearing it argued through.

I'm sorry if it seems like I've ignored your question. It's just that I have just now come home from work. Unlike apparently everyone here and everyone I seem to know, I don't work at an office where I get to spend a lot of time going over forums on the internet, which makes me question my current choice of career, but let's leave it at that...

Back to the question, am I indifferent to the occupation of Iraq? In what sense? I am not indifferent to the fact that, as revol said, there are a bunch of trigger-happy 18-20 - year-olds running other people's lives, which is a lot like what happens outside the Green Line in Palestine: I find it harrowing and destructive to everyone involved, especially those towards whom the guns are pointed, and I would like that to end.

But how will that end? The internal fracture of Iraqi society will not dissolve as if by magic when American forces are pulled out. The various armed militias will not automatically disarm, and there will be a bloody faction fight until one or more group show themselves worthy of imperial support, propping them up and setting the stage for new nation-building, i.e., oppression and further wars.

That's what happened in Palestine, after all. The British Empire retreated. Once the Zionists oppressed their internal opposition militias, gunning down an arms ship in the process, they set out to fortify their holdings, in accordance with their previous accords with other powers (the Hashemites come to mind), and once their victory was clear, they were given the grand privilege of accepted statehood, which allowed them further power in oppressing other groups: mainly the Arab minorities, but various immigrants as well.

Are we to expect any different from a "liberated" Iraq? Would a repeat of the Suni-dominated regime led by Saddam Hussein be an improvement under current circumstances? Would the Iraqis be happier to have their lives run by Tehran than Washington? Or maybe they will come to have the same kind of inter-faction "unity government" the Palestinians are enjoying in Gaza?

Your real question, if I understand it, is whether I am indifferent to US military presence in Iraq. All things remaining equal, I'd have to say my answer is yes. Because for the Iraqi people to be dominated by people from afar, for the Iraqi people to face mass violence on a daily basis, there is no need for American troops in Iraq. The ills of imperialism transcend the physical occupation by soldiers of an outside power. Local enforcers can be, and usually are, just as bad as their extra-national counterparts, from whom they've usually learned some of the tools of the trade to begin with.

Moreover, it is obvious that American troops will be leaving in the next few years for internal American political reasons, and just like in the case of Hezbollah in Lebanon, I'm wary of local bourgeois leaders taking credit for imperialist human resource accounting, thus further escalating the fracture of the Middle Eastern working-class, as if it needed any help.

This begs the question of why I bothered going to those anti-war rallies last summer. Well, one thing I can say from the start is that my ideology has evolved since then. Another thing is that I've been writing this post for an hour now, I am tired after an evening shift and I hope to be able to continue discussing this subject at length when I manage to gather the strength for it. That is assuming that I manage to find a convincing answer, because, to be honest, reading over this post, I feel like there's something missing, and that something's a positive venue of action; I'm not sure a few days will be enough for me to solve fill in that gap.

Another thing:

MJ wrote:
... and borders between "richer" and "poorer" countries tend to be a bit more built up than ones between more roughly equivalent ones, no?

I just don't see the value in going on about how capital divides the working class but avoiding the fact that it mostly divides the working class by stratifying it. This complaint is directed more against the left-communists in this thread than against you.

It certainly leaves the field clear for nationalists of all stripes. That's a big failing of theirs, it seems to me. Chanting "internationalism!" is not enough of an exorcism.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
May 16 2007 21:10
Devrim wrote:
Let's phrase it another way then; People who support an armed resistance to the Israli invasion. If that doesn't include yourself, I apologise for my assumption. I think, however, that it does include Joe Black, and a large body of opinion within 'Platformism'.

What do you mean by armed resistance to the Israeli invasion? I don't think that there's anything amiss with violently opposing an armed invasion of your own village, whether the troops happen to be Israeli or Shi'a militias, it's the shooting rockets at faraway towns that I have issues with, and the fact that people like Wayne Price would put all of that and suicide bombing under the blanket term "resistance."

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
May 16 2007 21:12
tojiah wrote:
Devrim wrote:
Let's phrase it another way then; People who support an armed resistance to the Israli invasion. If that doesn't include yourself, I apologise for my assumption. I think, however, that it does include Joe Black, and a large body of opinion within 'Platformism'.

What do you mean by armed resistance to the Israeli invasion? I don't think that there's anything amiss with violently opposing an armed invasion of your own village, whether the troops happen to be Israeli or Shi'a militias, it's the shooting rockets at faraway towns that I have issues with, and the fact that people like Wayne Price would put all of that and suicide bombing under the blanket term "resistance."

Don't paint everyone in this discussion with the same brush.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
May 16 2007 21:20
thugarchist wrote:
tojiah wrote:
Devrim wrote:
Let's phrase it another way then; People who support an armed resistance to the Israli invasion. If that doesn't include yourself, I apologise for my assumption. I think, however, that it does include Joe Black, and a large body of opinion within 'Platformism'.

What do you mean by armed resistance to the Israeli invasion? I don't think that there's anything amiss with violently opposing an armed invasion of your own village, whether the troops happen to be Israeli or Shi'a militias, it's the shooting rockets at faraway towns that I have issues with, and the fact that people like Wayne Price would put all of that and suicide bombing under the blanket term "resistance."

Don't paint everyone in this discussion with the same brush.

Yes, melord.. (?)

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
May 16 2007 21:45
tojiah wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
tojiah wrote:
Devrim wrote:
Let's phrase it another way then; People who support an armed resistance to the Israli invasion. If that doesn't include yourself, I apologise for my assumption. I think, however, that it does include Joe Black, and a large body of opinion within 'Platformism'.

What do you mean by armed resistance to the Israeli invasion? I don't think that there's anything amiss with violently opposing an armed invasion of your own village, whether the troops happen to be Israeli or Shi'a militias, it's the shooting rockets at faraway towns that I have issues with, and the fact that people like Wayne Price would put all of that and suicide bombing under the blanket term "resistance."

Don't paint everyone in this discussion with the same brush.

Yes, melord.. (?)

I'm just suggesting that there are a number of people who don't agree with Wayne's line on national liberation struggles yet also believe his position is being mischaracterized. The dishonesty of a number of folks here bent on attacking the "platformists" is to first mischaracterize Waynes position, then attampt to make it a platformist position when it isn't and finally to include anyone they disagree with as a platformist. This whole thread is nothing but a little boys game of one upmanship.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
May 16 2007 21:56
thugarchist wrote:
The dishonesty of a number of folks here bent on attacking the "platformists" is to first mischaracterize Waynes position, then attampt to make it a platformist position when it isn't and finally to include anyone they disagree with as a platformist.

Workers of the world! Look, see how quickly the faceless and numberless platformist jackals swarm to the defense of such bourgeois-nationalist ideologues as the nefarious Dr. Price!

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
May 16 2007 22:02

The Nefarious Dr. Price would make a good short story...

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
May 16 2007 22:43
thugarchist wrote:
I'm just suggesting that there are a number of people who don't agree with Wayne's line on national liberation struggles yet also believe his position is being mischaracterized. The dishonesty of a number of folks here bent on attacking the "platformists" is to first mischaracterize Waynes position, then attampt to make it a platformist position when it isn't and finally to include anyone they disagree with as a platformist. This whole thread is nothing but a little boys game of one upmanship.

Okay. But what does that have to do with what I said? I said "people like Wayne Price who would put [opposing invasion of one's village, shooting rockets at faraway cities] and suicide bombing under the blanket term "resistance."", why'd you take that to mean you, or anyone else on this thread? There's an idiom in Hebrew, "the hat burns on its stealer's head." wink

Surely you'd agree that johnnyflash and the late Barkanine are much better examples for "people like Wayne Price" in that sense.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
May 16 2007 22:53
tojiah wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
I'm just suggesting that there are a number of people who don't agree with Wayne's line on national liberation struggles yet also believe his position is being mischaracterized. The dishonesty of a number of folks here bent on attacking the "platformists" is to first mischaracterize Waynes position, then attampt to make it a platformist position when it isn't and finally to include anyone they disagree with as a platformist. This whole thread is nothing but a little boys game of one upmanship.

Okay. But what does that have to do with what I said? I said "people like Wayne Price who would put [opposing invasion of one's village, shooting rockets at faraway cities] and suicide bombing under the blanket term "resistance."", why'd you take that to mean you, or anyone else on this thread? There's an idiom in Hebrew, "the hat burns on its stealer's head." wink

Surely you'd agree that johnnyflash and the late Barkanine are much better examples for "people like Wayne Price" in that sense.

More of a comment on certain themes in the thread than a critique of what you said. I agree with you. Its different to defend your village against aggression than shoot rockets at civilians.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
May 17 2007 05:07
thugarchist wrote:
I'm just suggesting that there are a number of people who don't agree with Wayne's line on national liberation struggles yet also believe his position is being mischaracterized.

Actually, I see your point in that you have repeatedly stated to Revol that you don't agree with Wayne Price, and that you are not a member of NEFAC. Revol has then insisted that you defend Wayne's position, and NEFAC.

There are those who charecterise support for national liberation movements as support for nationalism. I would. You wouldn't I don't think that this is central to the argument though.

Quote:
The dishonesty of a number of folks here bent on attacking the "platformists"

This sounds like the international campaign against the 'Platformists again.

Quote:
is to first mischaracterize Waynes position,

In your opinion. His position is of support for national liberation movements. That is clear enough

Quote:
then attampt to make it a platformist position when it isn't

I know that they don't all hold this opinion, and I know that nobody else expresses it as clearly as him. However, I think that a lot of them hold positions quite close to it. Witness the constant argument on here about the WSM on Ireland. Also, he is a very prolific writer, and publishes a lot of stuff. It is not as if he is one member quietly in some backwoods somewhere.

Quote:
and finally to include anyone they disagree with as a platformist.

Actually, I think that most of the people arguing it on here are connected to Anarkismo groups. I think its fair to call them 'Platformists'. Much fairer than Joe Black's accusation that everyone against him is a left communist.

Quote:
This whole thread is nothing but a little boys game of one upmanship.

Your opinion

Devrim

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
May 17 2007 08:17
revol68 wrote:
and another thing youse are anarchists why the fuck youse would care what retarded shit the moronic left thinks is beyond me. Afterall most of them think Lenin and Trotsky were working class heroes.

Yeah but we're american anarchists so we also don't care what retarded shit the moronic british anarchists think either. After all most of them think that they've invented a revolutionary lexicon the rest of the world needs to follow.

Would this be a muffin worry, crumpet scramble or a full on bun fight?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
May 17 2007 11:22
thugarchist wrote:
the moronic british anarchists

i think wayne was marginally closer with his international left communist conspiracy

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
May 17 2007 12:08
JoeBlack2 wrote:
unlike the proletarian camp I feel no need to ascribe false positions to those I disagree with.

That's strange, because on here you have repeatedly, and wrongly, accused people such as myself of being left communists and big nation nationalists. But anyway...

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
May 17 2007 16:06
Joseph K. wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
the moronic british anarchists

i think wayne was marginally closer with his international left communist conspiracy

You sneaky bastards!

Kdog's picture
Kdog
Offline
Joined: 13-12-06
May 17 2007 23:44

Look, in Palestine, Chechnya, Lebanon Haiti and Iraq, and many other places, it is not an abstract question. International capitalism is in your face with tanks and humvees and bombers, setting up roadblocks, "searching" homes, detaining thousands, commiting massacres, etc.

Unless you accept the imperialist propaganda that this is just a response to terrorism, it is circuimstances revolutionaries have to confront. If the Israeli airstrikes only took out the Lebanese bourgoisie there wouldnt be a problem. But of course this is not reality. These are the major circuimstances that bring workers, peasants and youth to join forces attempting to defend or repel these attacks.

I read that some lebanese anarchists went down to southern lebanon to assist the resistance to the attacks. In my opinion, with very limited information, they were absolutely correct to do so. Just like joining a picket line, putting the boot to the fash, defending a womens clinic.

This is not the same in any way as supporting Hezbollahs politics, strategy, etc. I am frustrated that comrades cannot see the difference. No where does Wayne defend lobbing missles into Israeli civilian communities. I am positive he would condemn these tactics as not only antiworking-class, and anti-internationalist, but as counter productive to the project of ousting the israeli occupation and repeling the attacks on the lebanese poor.

Why would militant opposition to imperialist attack and occupation neccesarily mean acceptance of "native" capitalism and the state?

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
May 18 2007 08:22

Kdog, I have replied to your points on another thread as I think it is impossible to discuss things on this one.
TofJ, I intend to reply to your point on the same thread:
http://libcom.org/forums/thought/national-resistance
Devrim

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
May 19 2007 11:34
Devrim wrote:
devrim wrote:
I may have misread you Joe, and if so I would apologise, but I don't think so.

So let's state the question very clearly; Do you support armed resistance to an Israeli invasion of Lebanon?

The question is still there, Joe.

Of course you could continue to accuse people of dishonesty, or you could just answer it.

Devrim

Still waiting , Joe. It just needs a one word answer.

Devrim

Kdog's picture
Kdog
Offline
Joined: 13-12-06
May 19 2007 20:59

Not to speak for Joe, but I'm happy to answer that question.

YES.

Abso-fucking-lutely. Armed or otherwise.

To go further:

I would note that your question is a general, generic one. Like "Do you support workers going on strike?" or "Do you support women giving a rapist a kicking?".

So my one-word answer is a general, generic one as well. YES.

But because I support the general principal of working-class self-defence, does not mean that I support racists going on strike against immigrant workers, or police brutality by women cops. Or Hezzbelloh lobbing missles into Israeli apartment bulidings.

I would add that I also support israeli, palestinian and immigrant workers resisting the IDF by whatever means neccesary INSIDE israel.

In all cases revolutionary antiauthoritarian organization and methods are needed to successfully take on the entire sytem behind such invasions. And organizations or strategies that do not break with capitalism, sectarianism, patriarchy and heirarchy as a whole - will not only reproduce that kind of society, but are likely to actually be incorporated into the imperialist set-up they claim to be fighting (see Sinn Fein, the PLO, the ANC, etc.).

I am against anarchists disolving their groups into authoritarian organizations within national liberation movements. I am fully for anarchists, with their own program, resisting imperialist invasion and attempting to influence other workers, peasnats and youth forced to do the same.

Thank you for starting the new (provocatively-titled) thread. I will go over there to continue the dialogue.

solidarity,

K.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
May 19 2007 21:25

45 pages eek

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
May 19 2007 21:56

Kdog. Why do you support any kind of resistance to the IDF?

Devrim. Why don't you?

I'm not saying, fwiw, that i couldn't invent my own reasons for either side. And neither am I reading the whole damn thread, of 41 pages, for the juicy bits.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Dec 6 2007 05:12

Ah... the memories.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Jan 22 2011 09:01

Nostalgia is cute.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Jan 22 2011 11:22

Welcome back

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Dec 20 2011 00:35
thugarchist wrote:
Nostalgia is cute.

oof, the great "U R NATIONAL LIBERATIONIST/NUH-UH, FUCK OFF" internet debate of '07. those were some heady times. someone should do a "where are they now?" five year anniversary follow-up in april, haha.

i'm gonna assume that Common Struggle priortized this issue as the #1 most crucial thing to tighten up internally when they relaunched themselves and everything is cool now.

sawa
Offline
Joined: 18-02-09
Dec 20 2011 04:14

God what an awful thread, aggressive from the very beginning.
Hopefully people on here hold more sensible positions now. :] Though why the bumping of such?

Quote:
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.

OMGZzzz looks like Common Struggle is still doing the evil National Liberationing.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Dec 20 2011 05:32

Someone wanna write a blog post summarizing this thread? Jesus chrit

Topic locked