A question - NEFAC and national liberation

1182 posts / 0 new
Last post
throwhen
Offline
Joined: 19-12-06
Apr 25 2007 03:15
thugarchist wrote:
throwhen wrote:
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.

sometimes i have sex with the lights on

That explains your divorce...

i didn't dress up in a priest outfit

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 03:31
throwhen wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
throwhen wrote:
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.

sometimes i have sex with the lights on

That explains your divorce...

i didn't dress up in a priest outfit

I would.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Apr 25 2007 04:19
JoeBlack2 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. 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.

Oddly enough your argument doesn't seem to match history - despite having a very simple opposition to nationalism most anarchists managed to oppose World War I. Those who developed a more sophisticated "analysis" (i.e. excuse/rationalisation, e.g. Kropotkin) supported one side or the other. Occam's razor: the working class has no country. Please supply a link to the Lebanese anarchist thing on anarkismo. Doesn't sound like either group did the right thing.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Apr 25 2007 07:20
georgestapleton wrote:
Unfortunately almost every english speaking left communist is on this forum and they jump at the chance to intevene in the discussion and expose people as nationalist.

'every english speaking left communist?', I am not sure if this is just normal run of the mill exageration, or part of the paranoia, they are all out to get us. I count eight left communists regularly on this forum (Myself and Leo-EKS, Mic-IBRP, Alf, Ernie, and Beltov-ICC, Demogorgan and Lurch-Close to the ICC). I imagine that there are a few more English speaking left communists in the world.

People argue for their politics on political discussion board, but when in comes to left communists, they 'jump in and expose'.

georgestapleton wrote:
Libcom is not a good forum to discuss national liberation as it relates to anarchism.

It is not only the communist left who are arguing against your position. In fact the only member of the communist left who has argued on this thread has been myself. It has mostly been anarchists.

Devrim

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Apr 25 2007 07:41
Daniel wrote:
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?

When I talk about the 'Platformist current' (which I generally put in inverted commas with a capital P), I am talking about the groups around Anarkismo.

I don't think that the Class War Federation was in anyway platformist-influenced.

I think that Zabalaza is in this current, and from the little I have read of their stuff have the same line on national liberation as Wayne Price.

I don't think that the AF considers itself to be 'Platformist', though they were influenced by them in their early years. I think that we share the same line on national liberation struggles.

As I said previously, I don't think that Platformism is necessarily like this, and I think that anarchist groups can be revolutionary.

I am going to start a new thread on this idea of the proletarian camp.

Devrim

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 07:46
Devrim wrote:

'every english speaking left communist?', I am not sure if this is just normal run of the mill exageration, or part of the paranoia, they are all out to get us. I count eight left communists regularly on this forum (Myself and Leo-EKS, Mic-IBRP, Alf, Ernie, and Beltov-ICC, Demogorgan and Lurch-Close to the ICC). I imagine that there are a few more English speaking left communists in the world.

There can't be more than another 3 or 4 of you though.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Apr 25 2007 07:59
MJ wrote:
But I also don't think that my opinion on this topic matters, any more than his does, to most of what I hope to see NEFAC accomplishing in our region. So why would I let it get in the way of working with him?

This is very typical of the argument coming from the American 'Platformists'. It could be summarised as something like it doesn't effect us, so it isn't important.

To me this seems a very localistic way of looking at things. If you are trying to create an international tendency, it must be based around some level of political agreement. There is at least one group within the 'Anarkismo tendency', which does have to confront this question on an everyday level, AKİ in Turkey. This is a group that in the past have reprinted Wayne Price's work on national liberation, and have co-operated with the DTP (Kurdish nationalists)in platforms (small 'p'). I am not sure exactly what their position is today, but I will find out. As the 'Anarkismo tendency' grows, it will face this question more often. Theoretical work in the English language does have a large influence internationally. Do the Platformists think that any sort of theoretical, and tactical unity is necessary on an international level, or do you believe that each national group should work out its own position?

Devrim

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Apr 25 2007 08:09
thugarchist wrote:
Devrim wrote:

'every english speaking left communist?', I am not sure if this is just normal run of the mill exageration, or part of the paranoia, they are all out to get us. I count eight left communists regularly on this forum (Myself and Leo-EKS, Mic-IBRP, Alf, Ernie, and Beltov-ICC, Demogorgan and Lurch-Close to the ICC). I imagine that there are a few more English speaking left communists in the world.

There can't be more than another 3 or 4 of you though.

This sort of argument is amazing, it reminds me of the Stalinists calling groups 'miniscule sects'.

Devrim

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 08:18
Devrim wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
Devrim wrote:

'every english speaking left communist?', I am not sure if this is just normal run of the mill exageration, or part of the paranoia, they are all out to get us. I count eight left communists regularly on this forum (Myself and Leo-EKS, Mic-IBRP, Alf, Ernie, and Beltov-ICC, Demogorgan and Lurch-Close to the ICC). I imagine that there are a few more English speaking left communists in the world.

There can't be more than another 3 or 4 of you though.

This sort of argument is amazing, it reminds me of the Stalinists calling groups 'miniscule sects'.

Devrim

This sort of argument is amazing, it reminds me of the Troskyists calling everyone on earth Stalinists.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 25 2007 10:56
throwhen and thugarchist I've just blocked you both. You were warned more than once the past couple of days about one-liner odysseys on serious threads, and you've ignored it. Will discuss with other admins how long it lasts.
MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Apr 25 2007 12:00

Wow... one-liners or not, in this thread (in "our" forum mind you) you demanded NEFAC's expulsion of a member, and then banned someone who argued with you about it. Fuck you.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 25 2007 12:22

my fault, I forgot this thread was in the NEFAC forum because I came from the tracker, we don't normally ban people for activity in hosted forums unless it's by request from someone from the group involved. All I can do is hold my hands up on that one.

However, if there's more one-liner odysseys in general forums, then they'll both get re-banned even if it's only temp. We can't split threads to llibcommunity easily at the moment, so posters need to excercise some self-control on serious threads and split discussions themselves, it's not hard.

fwiw I was enjoying the discussion with thugarchist, at least he's got a sense of humour. I wouldn't be involved in running the site if I didn't enjoy having people disagree with me, but I won't be involved if I have to spend my time reading and/or cleaning up pages and pages of "your mum" on every thread every day either.

This also reminds me to go posting more bug reports on the forum moderator module so stuff like this doesn't crop up so often.

So embarrassed but angry

unbanned by the way, and fuck you too for trying to make it political MJ. When most of page 5 was taken up by this:

thugarchist wrote:
throwhen wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
throwhen wrote:
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.

sometimes i have sex with the lights on

That explains your divorce...

i didn't dress up in a priest outfit

I would.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Apr 25 2007 12:41

Thanks -- that is a reasonable policy, and most of my frustration was because this is a hosted forum.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 25 2007 12:52

cool, I'm posting from a window 300x400px wide with all the text greyed out, and forums/nefac/question
wasn't different enough from forums/thought/nefac-question to notice. I'll try to check that next time and not just assume it's in thought.

daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
Apr 25 2007 13:04
MJ wrote:
Wow... one-liners or not, in this thread (in "our" forum mind you) you demanded NEFAC's expulsion of a member, and then banned someone who argued with you about it. Fuck you.

who demanded that? i must have missed it.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 25 2007 13:07
daniel wrote:
MJ wrote:
Wow... one-liners or not, in this thread (in "our" forum mind you) you demanded NEFAC's expulsion of a member, and then banned someone who argued with you about it. Fuck you.

who demanded that? i must have missed it.

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.
Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Apr 25 2007 13:24

not exactly a "demand" then?

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 25 2007 13:48
Flint wrote:
- 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.

I think that's pretty clear - if members have views consisently in opposition to the stated principles of an organisation then either the principles or the membership ought to change. It's certainly not a demand.

I didn't count on the curve-ball of NEFAC members thinking there was no contradiction though.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Apr 25 2007 15:17
Devrim wrote:
georgestapleton wrote:
Unfortunately almost every english speaking left communist is on this forum and they jump at the chance to intevene in the discussion and expose people as nationalist.

'every english speaking left communist?', I am not sure if this is just normal run of the mill exageration, or part of the paranoia, they are all out to get us. I count eight left communists regularly on this forum (Myself and Leo-EKS, Mic-IBRP, Alf, Ernie, and Beltov-ICC, Demogorgan and Lurch-Close to the ICC). I imagine that there are a few more English speaking left communists in the world.

Huh. Eight is more than I would've guessed. Careful, once you reach a dozen a new International might break out.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Apr 25 2007 15:25
Mike Harman wrote:
pages and pages of "your mum"

groucho

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Apr 25 2007 15:38
revol68 wrote:
Is Smash RIch Bastards or Joe Black going to engage the discussion. I'm particularly interested on Smash Rich Bastards novel take on 'national liberation'.

Sorry, I only hit up these boards when I'm wasting time at work (which is probably a good five or six hours behind when you're likely wasting time at work). Anyways, on to my "novel take" on national liberation...

revol68 wrote:
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
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.

So DO YOU think that youth fighting against police brutality and demanding equal rights and an end to discrimination in employment and housing can be considered a 'national liberation' movement? Because that would seem very strange to me, afterall the PIRA rejected such a campaign on the basis that a) such equal rights were impossible whilst partition remained or in many old school republicans view b) a campaign for such rights is a campaign for greater integration of the catholic population and therefore a hinderance to the ultimate goal of 32 county unity. This explains why the Provo's campaign in the early seventies was one of escalation, seeking to up the ante and play their role in making Northern Ireland ungovernable.

Would I? No. But a lot of people would, just as a lot of people characterize the civil rights movement in the American south as a fight for national determination (and radicialized blacks have charaterized themselves as an "internal colony" or seperate "nation" of people). I think it is safe to say that Wayne Price is one of those people. I dunno, maybe it is a generational thing, or else maybe he is rhetorically tainted for life by his Trotskyist past, or maybe he is a horrible nationalist at heart. But from conversations I've had with Wayne I think it is largely semantics.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Apr 25 2007 16:08
revol68 wrote:
stop dodging the fucking issue!

the kind of people who try and paint civil rights marches as national liberationist are generally national liberationists engaged in revisionism and creating a nice narrative of national resistance. Either Wayne Price is a niave dupe or infact he is actually very confused and hence his attempts to make anarcho communism compatiable with national liberation are equally silly and contradictary.

How am I dodging the issue? I just said I wouldn't (repeat: WOULD NOT) characterize these things as "national liberation". People like Wayne do. He comes out of a New Left '60s background. You and I don't. What else do you want me to say about it?

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Apr 25 2007 16:24
revol68 wrote:
oh fuck off you disingenious twat, to think youse platformists are meant to be the theoretical creme de creme. Why are you trying to pretend it's just a matter of semantics? Why are you pretending there aren't real tangiable differences between my position (and suppouseldy your's) and Wayne Price's? I mean the very notion of 'national self determination' is obvious enough! That would mean supporting a United Ireland (or maybe even an independent Ulster) where I'm from, i'd suggest that's a pretty idiotic position and one with real consequences.

Am I suppose to respond to this?

Whatever, when it comes down to it I don't give a fuck about you and your purity tests, don't care about saving face on Libcom in front of the left-commie clucking hens, and can think of about a hundred more pressing issues in NEFAC to focus on than putting Wayne Price to some litmus test to determine exactly what degree of "nationalism" clouds his politics (which to this point hasn't even set off any warning bells among members of our group).

How's that for a position?

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 25 2007 16:25
revol68 wrote:
oh fuck off you disingenious twat, to think youse platformists are meant to be the theoretical creme de creme. Why are you trying to pretend it's just a matter of semantics? Why are you pretending there aren't real tangiable differences between my position (and suppouseldy your's) and Wayne Price's? I mean the very notion of 'national self determination' is obvious enough! That would mean supporting a United Ireland (or maybe even an independent Ulster) where I'm from, i'd suggest that's a pretty idiotic position and one with real consequences.

Theoretical coherence is a goal of folks working together. We've generally found that our theory gets a lot better in areas we work together than in areas where we have little experience. At one time, NEFAC's position on workplace organizing was a combination of rejection of unions, anarcho-syndicalism with the IWW, and working with some of the existing business unions. Now, we understand more about it and have come to where we are at with the workplace position paper. We have a lot more unity over it than we did before; even if you probably don't like what's in it or see it as contradictory.

None of us live in Ireland. I don't think you'll find any NEFAC documents that discuss nationalism in an context of Ireland. I doubt there is a whole lot of documents you've written about desegregation in the U.S. But hey, every situation is identical, you know... and we can totally apply whatever ideological truism to each and every situation because it's always going to be true cause we have the one right way of thinking.

daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
Apr 25 2007 17:15

and what crosses the line supposedly drawn between nationalism and national liberation. on Anarkismo Wayne Price now writes that:

Wayne Price wrote:
So do I support the FSLN? Or the Hezbollah today? No and yes. More no than yes. I am a TOTAL political opponent of these forces, or at least their leaderships and programs, but would rather see them win than see the imperialists win, for the sake of the people of the world.

As I said on anarkismo - nuff said.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 25 2007 17:17
MJ wrote:
Well nowhere in there did I say that we seek to act for action's sake -- but rather that it's more important to develop theoretical unanimity (and shared vocabulary) around the struggles that we ourselves actually intend to engage in. Whatever minor semantic or theoretical differences might exist, on paper, around the question of national-liberation movements that we might have within the federation, have never slowed down our actual participation in the real world.

Having articles published, even if they only appear on the internet, is participation in the real world. It might not be as tangible as some other activities but it is 'real' and real people read it. If Wayne was publishing articles supporting national liberation in some big virtual game thingy like second life then I might give you that one, but he's not, it's on a website which according to one of the people that runs it gets around 35,000 page views/day. It's going to have a much wider effect than a few photocopied sheets of A4 handed out in the street, even if handing stuff out in the street scores more activist points.

Quote:
NEFAC has lent material support and solidarity to indigenous groups' struggles in our region.

What kind of support? What kind of indegenous groups' struggles? There are NGOs that try to help indigenous populations so how does it differ?

Quote:
NEFAC has participated in opposition to military actions of the US state inside and outside its borders.

Over here the SWP, Workers Power, various tankie groups can all say that as well, in fact the SWP would say they're the only credible group who did and they led the "movement" against it (I think they even published a book saying so,hopefully it got remaindered). In the US I'd imagine ANSWER, the RCP or whatever maoists that Bob bloke leads, they "participated in opposition to military actions of the US state inside and outside its borders." as well - but it's on the terms of supporting the other side, "critical support" for the Iraqi resistance, with some of the madder ones defending the 9/11 attacks etc. etc. I'm sure NEFAC doesn't do that - but

Quote:
opposition to military actions of the US state inside and outside its borders.

doesn't necessarily mean opposition to all war, or even the specific one going on, it says nothing on how that's done in practice at all.

Quote:
There was support for RAWA on an organizational level;

Don't know loads about RAWA but what I do seems like they're basically stalinist right up to their support for liberal democracy. Plus they get a lot of support from NGOs it seems so why should a small revolutionary group duplicate that?

Quote:
some individuals are active in prison support including for prisoners who hemselves have national-liberation political lines;

Nothing wrong with prisoner support, but is it because of their politics (even a general commitment to "radical" prisoners)? Because I think general people who get imprisoned for non-payment of TV licenses or three strikes and stuff deserve the support at least as much.

Quote:
and some other folks are developing a group that follows a line on Iran similar to that held by HOPOI in the UK.

Well HOPOI is I think run by the CPGB, more stalinists. ahh, here's their list of supporters:

Quote:
Campaign for a Marxist Party
Communist Party of Great Britain
Communist Students
Green Party
Iran Bulletin - Middle East Forum
Iranian Workers Bulletin
Marxistische Initiative / Germany
Movement for Socialism
Organization of Revolutionary Workers of Iran (Rahe Kargar)
Republican Communist Network
Socialist Democracy (Ireland)
The Starry Plough Initiative (Ireland)
Workers Left Unity - Iran

Yep, tankies and Green liberals who go on and on about green capitalism and sustainable economic expansion blah blah.

And some individual supporters - mainly New Labour, RESPECT, green party again, and Welsh Nationalists:

Quote:
John McDonnell MP - House of Commons
Harry Cohen MP - House of Commons
Senator David Norris - Seanad Éireann
Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD - Dáil Éireann
Rosemary Byrne MSP - Solidarity co-convenor, Scottish Parliament
Carolyn Leckie MSP - Scottish Socialist Party, Scottish Parliament
Tommy Sheridan MSP - Solidarity, Scottish Parliament
Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM - Plaid Cymru, Welsh Assembly
Leanne Wood AM - Plaid Cymru, Welsh Assembly
Peter Tatchell - OutRage
Derek Wall - Male Principal Speaker of the Green Party
Chris Ballance - former Green MSP
Patrick Harvie - Green Party candidate, Glasgow
Professor Mike Gonzalez - Glasgow University
Haifa Zangana - writer
Cllr Lutfa Begum - Respect, Tower Hamlets
Cllr Chris Flood - Lewisham
Cllr Jackie Grunsell - Save Huddersfield NHS, Kirklees
Cllr Rania Khan - Respect, Tower Hamlets
Quote:
Is any of that objectionable?

Is it objectionable for an anarchist group to align itself with stalinists and liberals? Or use their front group as a model? You tell me!

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 25 2007 17:18
daniel wrote:
and what crosses the line supposedly drawn between nationalism and national liberation. on Anarkismo Wayne Price now writes that:
Wayne Price wrote:
So do I support the FSLN? Or the Hezbollah today? No and yes. More no than yes. I am a TOTAL political opponent of these forces, or at least their leaderships and programs, but would rather see them win than see the imperialists win, for the sake of the people of the world.

As I said on anarkismo - nuff said.

I'd rather see the U.S. out of Iraq. Does that mean I support Sunni Nationalists?

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 25 2007 17:32
Mike Harman wrote:
Is it objectionable for an anarchist group to align itself with stalinists and liberals? Or use their front group as a model? You tell me!

Let's dispense with arguing actual politics and move right on to guilt by association! NEFAC was also once in an anti-war march where there were members of the Democrat party were also speaking from the podium! The horrors!

NEFAC's also encouraged folks who want to support folks in Iraq to do so through the Union of the Unemployed of Iraq and the Federation of Workers Councils and Unions of Iraq... two mass groups that have a large degree of involvement from the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq (and it's splits). But our real focus is on getting the U.S. out. Our primary interest is that many of us are in the U.S. and it's waging an imperialist war there... and we don't see that as good for either the U.S. proletariat or the Iraqi proletariat.

Also, whenever we're fighting nazis... we don't take time to denounce someone from the stalinist PLP who showed up to help. Really, there is no end to our impurity. Sometimes, we are even polite to crimethincers.

P.S. the typical attack on RAWA's politics is that they are Maoist. While I realize that is supposed to be included in the description of Stalinist, I think you are loosing a lot that way. But RAWA is more maoist like say the Zapatistas have maoist roots... and less like say... the Maoists in Nepal.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 25 2007 17:38
Flint wrote:
Mike Harman wrote:
Is it objectionable for an anarchist group to align itself with stalinists and liberals? Or use their front group as a model? You tell me!

Let's dispense with arguing actual politics and move right on to guilt by association!

The association was all done by MJ, I didn't know any of that stuff until he posted it. If he wants to associate NEFAC with those groups (practically and/or ideologically) do you want me to just ignore it even though he's using it to try to score points off me?
If a number of NEFAC members are basing an anti-war organisation on HOPOI then that's really fucking stupid, but let's just pretend I brought it up as some kind of witch hunt shall we?

Quote:
P.S. the typical attack on RAWA's politics is that they are Maoist. While I realize that is supposed to be included in the description of Stalinist, I think you are loosing a lot that way. But RAWA is more maoist like say the Zapatistas have maoist roots... and less like say... the Maoists in Nepal.

I'm not very excited about the Zapatistas to be honest, but don't know vast amounts about them.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 25 2007 17:39
Flint wrote:
daniel wrote:
and what crosses the line supposedly drawn between nationalism and national liberation. on Anarkismo Wayne Price now writes that:
Wayne Price wrote:
So do I support the FSLN? Or the Hezbollah today? No and yes. More no than yes. I am a TOTAL political opponent of these forces, or at least their leaderships and programs, but would rather see them win than see the imperialists win, for the sake of the people of the world.

As I said on anarkismo - nuff said.

I'd rather see the U.S. out of Iraq. Does that mean I support Sunni Nationalists?

Do you think a unilateral withdrawal of the US from Iraq is the same as a win for Sunni Nationalists?

Topic locked