A question - NEFAC and national liberation

1182 posts / 0 new
Last post
thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 21:25
revol68 wrote:

let's be honest the Platform was mostly aimed at professional revolutionaries bringing their 'homogenous and finished programme' to the working class.

Of course the complaint here in this hilarious thread is that NEFAC isn't homgenous and finished enough...

daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
Apr 25 2007 21:29

You have a point. I'm sorry, I got a bit bit carried away by the hostility that's taken over this thread. I apologise.

I'm NOT, however, trying to "enforce ideological disipline" - I came (without an agenda) to ask a question I actually was interested in. No demands, condemnations - nothing. Everything I'd previously heard about NEFAC I immensely admired, and think you're the best thing that's happened to American anarchism in a long, long while. There was just one point, important, I thought, that I wanted to CLARIFY. Nothing else, no sinister motives, plans, or purity tests. I don't do that shit. Why on earth would I?

My very best wishes to everyone at NEFAC, and specifically, everybody what's posted here. No aggro was intended.

Last thing - but you really think it's okay to be giving "critical support" to Hezbollah? confused

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 21:36
revol68 wrote:
Look can youse platformist pricks get your shit together enough so as to actually discuss the issue at the centre of this ie, nationalism and national liberation?

I don't care what the fuck youse do with that dullard The Hammer, make him your deity or take an ice pick to his neo trot head, whatever, lets get down to actually discussing the area of contention, is there a difference between 'national liberation' and 'nationalism', can all forms of resistance to particular oppressions be co opted into 'national liberation' and if so why would anarchists wish to do so?

Afterall it was stated earlier that there are plenty of people in NEFAC who disagree with The Hammer, so i'd imagine they think their disagreement is more than just semantics and The Hammer's hangover from the New Left.

So look let's pretend The Hammer's off giving oral relief to Hezbullah or giving a reach around to some dissident republicans in Strabane, and talk about the issues, afterall what youse choose to do with The Hammer is your own business and quite frankly I'm happy enough to have him make a laughing stock out of our would be 'leadership of ideas'.

I think its irrelevant. There are aspects of national liberation struggles that lend themselves to libertarian influence and aspects that don't. Is saying that I support the Iraqi's resistance against U.S. imperialism the same as saying I support the goals and aims of the Iraqi resistance? I don't think so. What do you think?

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 21:37
daniel wrote:

Last thing - but you really think it's okay to be giving "critical support" to Hezbollah? confused

No I don't.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Apr 25 2007 21:38
revol68 wrote:
Let me ask you once again, do you really think the difference between my position and Wayne Price's is semantics and if so could you possibly explain what 'supporting national self determination' means in my non New Left lingo?I'll give you extra points if you can even give a suggestion what this support for 'national self determination' would look like in northern ireland.

Mostly, yeah.

Like the example Flint made above, whereas Wayne would argue for a "defeat of the U.S. in Iraq" most of us would phrase it as a "U.S. out of Iraq" to avoid any confusion of our lending support to a cross-class, largely reactionary Iraqi resistance. To 99.9% of the world these two positions are easily inter-changable, if not identical.

As for Northern Ireland, I have to admit that my knowledge is pretty much limited to BBC News and drunken ex-pats. I was under the impression that your "national question" was solved by the Good Friday Accord a few years back and you have since united over sectarian lines in common cause against invading immigrants.

I suppose if any particular immigrant group gets organized enough to collectively repel these attacks that could possibly fall under "national self-determination". What do you think?

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 25 2007 21:47
daniel wrote:
You have a point. I'm sorry, I got a bit bit carried away by the hostility that's taken over this thread. I apologise.

I'm NOT, however, trying to "enforce ideological disipline" - I came (without an agenda) to ask a question I actually was interested in. No demands, condemnations - nothing. Everything I'd previously heard about NEFAC I immensely admired, and think you're the best thing that's happened to American anarchism in a long, long while. There was just one point, important, I thought, that I wanted to CLARIFY. Nothing else, no sinister motives, plans, or purity tests. I don't do that shit. Why on earth would I?

My very best wishes to everyone at NEFAC, and specifically, everybody what's posted here. No aggro was intended.

Last thing - but you really think it's okay to be giving "critical support" to Hezbollah? confused

Has NEFAC put out a statement of "critical support" to Hezbollah? No!

I'd love to share with you the archives of the internal NEFAC discussion about the situation in regards to Lebanon and Israel; but YOU AREN'T A MEMBER. If NEFAC was going to issue something publicly about it--WE WOULD HAVE! But we are really busy trying to focus on areas we want to focus: workplace organizing, tenant and community organizing, and immigration... with sometimes taking a breath to oppose wars that the respective Nation-States we live in decide to wage, as well as doing everything else we do. We still took the time to write a paper on the Quebec National Question, and we internally discussed the situation with Lebanon-Israel. To date, we've also not published anything in regards to Ireland and the UK, Turkey and the Kurds, the Tamil Tigers and Sri Lanka, etc... unless stated otherwise, assume our general Aims and Principles applies... but only in the roughest sense in situations where we have no connection and no intention to do any work.

You might also note that not everything Wayne writes goes up on the main NEFAC website or news email list.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 25 2007 21:52
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
I suppose if any particular immigrant group gets organized enough to collectively repel these attacks that could possibly fall under "national self-determination". What do you think?

not unless they push an agenda of their own seperate national territory, which isn't fucking likely and certainly hasn't been the case with any immigrant groups into the UK.

Again I ask why would anyone seek to twist such struggles into a narrative of 'national liberation'? In my experiance the only people who do so are nationalists looking to link up their nationalist mythology with real concrete concerns.

The majority of black folks in the U.S. who would self-identify as "black national liberationists" or "black nationalists" do not argue for their own separate national territory. A small minority does, but most everyone regards them as crazy. Couldn't it be possible that some people use terminology that sounds like the terminology you use, but really is quite different than reality of whatever the fucking problem is in Ulster?

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 21:52
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
I think its irrelevant. There are aspects of national liberation struggles that lend themselves to libertarian influence and aspects that don't. Is saying that I support the Iraqi's resistance against U.S. imperialism the same as saying I support the goals and aims of the Iraqi resistance? I don't think so. What do you think?

See this is just talking in slogans and to talk about aspects of 'national liberation' struggles lending themselves to libertarian influence just sums up the problem, that they are seen as apsects of national liberation in the first place, that is that national liberations seeks to subsume and reify all resistance into it's narrow narrative. Hence the battle of the bogside and civil rights movement gets quickly assimilated into a nationalist mythology.

Yeah well, I'm not so good at intellectualizing. You're better at the tedium of arguing semantics than I ever will be. Ultimately you and I are probably very close on this subject.

However if you think the U.S. civil rights movement wasn't a variety of a nationalist movement then you're smokin crack. So yes I support black communities defending against white gentrification and at the same time point out that the issue is ultimately about rich people speculating in economically depressed areas to then reap huge profits from the wealthier (or more economically privelaged as I've heard college kids say) elements of the working class to the detriment of whats becoming a permanent underclass in our inner city - communities.

There's a similar phenomenon that happens almostly exclusively to the white rural poor, but hey, wouldn't want you to think a nuanced understanding of complex issues means I support the falangist uprising of timbuktoo.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 21:56
Flint wrote:

Couldn't it be possible that some people use terminology that sounds like the terminology you use, but really is quite different than reality of whatever the fucking problem is in Ulster?

Don't worry. They're making an Alternative Ulster just for Revol.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Apr 25 2007 21:58
daniel wrote:
You have a point. I'm sorry, I got a bit bit carried away by the hostility that's taken over this thread. I apologise.

I'm NOT, however, trying to "enforce ideological disipline" - I came (without an agenda) to ask a question I actually was interested in. No demands, condemnations - nothing. Everything I'd previously heard about NEFAC I immensely admired, and think you're the best thing that's happened to American anarchism in a long, long while. There was just one point, important, I thought, that I wanted to CLARIFY. Nothing else, no sinister motives, plans, or purity tests. I don't do that shit. Why on earth would I?

My very best wishes to everyone at NEFAC, and specifically, everybody what's posted here. No aggro was intended.

Last thing - but you really think it's okay to be giving "critical support" to Hezbollah? confused

No problem. I apologize too, and take you at your word that you were just looking for clarification. Honestly, after enough years of dealing with shit being slung from all directions (ultra-left, primitivist, post-leftist, syndicalist, etc.) its hard not to respond knee-jerk defensively.

Ultimately you are right. We do need to have tighter positions and more discipline in our group. But it is something that needs to happen from within, through our own collective development. For the time being there are unfortunately areas that are loose enough to allow for a various different perspectives and nuanced interpretations (national liberation obviously being one of them).

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 22:01
revol68 wrote:

ah so now there are differences between NEFAC and Waynes positions, it's not merely semantics as Smash Rich Bastards claims?

It is possible that both things are true. You misinterpret The Hammer's position and The Hammer's comrades disagree with his actual position.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Apr 25 2007 22:03

This thread is hilarious.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 22:04
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
The majority of black folks in the U.S. who would self-identify as "black national liberationists" or "black nationalists" do not argue for their own separate national territory. A small minority does, but most everyone regards them as crazy. Couldn't it be possible that some people use terminology that sounds like the terminology you use, but really is quite different than reality of whatever the fucking problem is in Ulster?

right, and so these folk will clearly campaign around issues such as racism, police brutality? Now aren't they issues that black folk who couldn't give two flying fucks about 'black nationalism' are involved in. Doesn't that prove my point that rather than it being a simple matter of semantics, that instead those who have an interest in labelling such concrete struggles 'national liberation' tend to have other agendas and that they seek to co opt such resistance into their shitty narrative and are successful in so much as even the supposed 'leadership of ideas' can't tell the fucking difference?!

Seriously you only have to look at the late sixties in northern ireland to see how this works and it has worked to such an extent now that republicans have revised their own historical narrative to the point where their struggle was identical with that for civil rights, especially handy when you've just spent over 20 years in a brutal war that's ended back at square one.

Guess what? NYC and Boston ain't fucking in Ireland and the issues, culture and struggle are not the same.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 25 2007 22:07

Update!

A member of NEFAC who has spent some time in East Timor, just published an article on mandatory conscription there: East Timor: When bad just keeps getting worse

Noone else in NEFAC has had time to read the article yet, and there has been no internal debate about East Timor. Could someone who has no organizational affiliation with NEFAC please do so and tell us if we should praise or expel the author depending on whether her article has any agreement or contradiction with NEFAC's aims and principles? Preferably some ultra-left wanker on the other side of the Atlantic ocean who isn't a member of even a 3 member groupuscule with a geocities website?

Thanks!

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Apr 25 2007 22:09
revol68 wrote:
ah so now there are differences between NEFAC and Waynes positions, it's not merely semantics as Smash Rich Bastards claims?

Actually I never said it was "merely" a question of semantics. I said "mostly" and "largely" (which, I thought went without saying implied "not entirely"). You really aren't good with nuances, are you? Or else you just read what you want to read. Hmm...

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 22:09
revol68 wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
revol68 wrote:

ah so now there are differences between NEFAC and Waynes positions, it's not merely semantics as Smash Rich Bastards claims?

It is possible that both things are true. You misinterpret The Hammer's position and The Hammer's comrades disagree with his actual position.

so either way their are differences between Price's positions and others in NEFAC. That sounds very likely to me, especially in light of the views on nationalism expressed by the Quebec comrades when they visited here.

You'd have to ask someone in NEFAC. I'm not in NEFAC and disagree with The Hammer's positions, but I'd still help him out in a bar fight while I'd probably just watch you get your ass kicked. Its kinda like a form of nationalism.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Apr 25 2007 22:13

I asked this question before. Would it be possible to have an answer?

Devrim wrote:
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

Wayne Price
Offline
Joined: 22-10-06
Apr 25 2007 22:13

Wow. 8 pages of "discussion" of my views on nationalism, and of whether my views contradict those of NEFAC (US) and, if so, whether I should be expelled from NEFAC.

However, I agree with an early comment by Smash Rich Bastard, that this discussion, which is a repeat of an earlier thread, is boring. It is boring because it is not really a discussion at all. There is simply no attempt by the anti-national liberation side to deal with my politics and to rebut them. Instead, my anti-nationalist views are held up for scorn and ridicule, as self-evidently idiotic. (I say that I am against nationalism but this is obviously not really true, they say, because I am for national liberation.) This would be okay within a homogeneous grouping, all of whom think that there are no oppressed nations and that the Iraqis are the equivalent of U.S. imperialism. But in a discussion among various views, it gets us nowhere.

Apparently, my oponents believe (1) there are no nations who should fight for their freedom from oppression (but they do not necessarily say the same about other forms of non-class oppression, for some unknown reason). (2) there is no imperialism, in the sense that the capitalist classes of a few nations dominate and exploit the rest of the world. (3) they should oppose the military invasion by the U.S. of Iraq and ALSO any military effort of the Iraqis AGAINST the U.S. forces and its puppets (I am not talking about sectarian warfare among different sectors of the Iraqi people). The mighty imperialist U.S. and the impoverished little nation of Iraq are treated as equivalent. (4) they are against the slogan of "Immediate, Unilateral, U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq!" (or U.S. Out Now!) --I will not comment on what this means to me.

None of these points has been seriously argued or contrasted with my views. This is what makes the discussion boring.

I like almost all of what Flint and Smash Rich Bastards wrote. It is my opinion, with which they may or may not agree, that our opinions on this issue are essentially the same, despite differences in phrasing. Similarly my anti-nationalist opinions are essentially the same as those of the Irish WSM and the South African ZACF.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Apr 25 2007 22:15
thugarchist wrote:
revol68 wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
revol68 wrote:

ah so now there are differences between NEFAC and Waynes positions, it's not merely semantics as Smash Rich Bastards claims?

It is possible that both things are true. You misinterpret The Hammer's position and The Hammer's comrades disagree with his actual position.

so either way their are differences between Price's positions and others in NEFAC. That sounds very likely to me, especially in light of the views on nationalism expressed by the Quebec comrades when they visited here.

You'd have to ask someone in NEFAC. I'm not in NEFAC and disagree with The Hammer's positions, but I'd still help him out in a bar fight while I'd probably just watch you get your ass kicked. Its kinda like a form of nationalism.

Pffft... as if The Hammer would need your help. Have you seen that heavy Gandalf staff he rolls with? You think that's cuz of his bad knees? Think again.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 22:16
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
Guess what? NYC and Boston ain't fucking in Ireland and the issues, culture and struggle are not the same.

and Wayne Price doesn't live in fucking Lebanon but it doesn't stop him spouting his shite.

The fact is that anarchism is suppoused to internationalist and as such it should consistently oppose nationalism, no matter where, it should especially be concerned when nationalism seeks to co opt genuine working class struggles, as it has done so all over the world, to the cost of many lives.

The Hammer isn't trying to analyze local struggles in the frame of reference of local struggles elswhere. You could write an article on Southy and argue that its identical to the troubles but it ain't or you could write an article on Southy. Its irrelevant that you're from ireland. Whats your point?

Internationalism doesn't mean you blatantly try to ignore local reality, it means you see the fight of the working class as a struggle of us all.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Apr 25 2007 22:17
Wayne Price wrote:
Wow. 8 pages of "discussion" of my views on nationalism, and of whether my views contradict those of NEFAC (US) and, if so, whether I should be expelled from NEFAC.

Aw shit...

THOU HAST AWAKENED THE BEAST.

Good luck. You all are on your own now.

Later.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Apr 25 2007 22:24
Mike Harman wrote:
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.

Wow, you think that by mentioning our "actual participation in the real world" I meant "we don't just put up boring documents about our position on the Internet, we actually print them out and hand them out on the street"? Ha ha ha. You must be real fun at parties.

Mike Harman wrote:
MJ wrote:
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?

Oh no! "NGOs" "help indigenous populations" so clearly it would be counterrevolutionary for us to hook up with indigenous people in struggle! Fucking dumbass. Of course we're giving qualitatively different support and in specific situations where "NGOs" wouldn't.

This bizarre guilt-by-comparison continues through your complaint that (OH NO!) Stalinists and Maoists participate in antiwar movements!

I've made it clear that all these things are not central focuses of our work...

Mike Harman wrote:
Don't know loads about RAWA but what I do seems like they're basically stalinist right up to their support for liberal democracy.
Mike Harman wrote:
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.

Well, you'd probably get along pretty well with the mainstream anarchist movement in the US.

Mike Harman wrote:
MJ wrote:
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:

Their line. Which as I read it is pretty much proletarian internationalism and NOT anti-imperialist nationalism.

At this point you have clearly crossed from participating in the discussion in good faith, because you're just frothing at the mouth and throwing whatever you can against anything we say about our group.

The whole fucking anarchist argument against NATIONALISM is that it divides the working class and binds regional working classes to their regional capitalist classes. The whole fucking anarchist argument against NATIONAL LIBERATION as a way to fight capitalism is that it will inevitably divert any class-struggle impulses involved into a nationalist struggle that can only benefit the "oppressed-nation" ruling class. You know, STALINISM! And why shouldn't we pay much attention to antiwar struggles? Because STALINISTS participate! An anarchist in the US shouldn't pay any mind to US-Iran brinksmanship because it would inevitably just strengthen the position of the Ahmedinijads of that society, right?

And yet... what's the HOPOI line that individuals from NEFAC, the crypto-Stalinist federation, like? You know, their actual position?[/b]


HOPOI wrote:
In Iran, the theocracy is using the international outcry against its nuclear weapons programme to divert attention away from the country's endemic crisis, deflect popular anger onto foreign enemies and thus prolong its reactionary rule.

The pretext of external threats has been cynically used to justify increased internal repression. The regime's security apparatus has been unleashed on its political opponents, workers, women and youth. The rising tide of daily working class anti-capitalist struggles has been met with arrests, the ratification of new anti-labour laws and sweeping privatisations. Under the new Iranian government, military-fascist organisations are gaining political and military strength, posing an ominous threat to the working class and democratic opposition.

Paradoxically, the US/UK invasion of Iraq has actually increased the regional influence of Iran's rulers - it led to the election of the pro-Iranian Shia government currently in power in Baghdad.

This means that any support from the anti-war movement for the reactionaries who currently govern Iran and repress its people is in effect indirect support for the occupation government in Iraq.

We recognise that effective resistance to this war can only mean the militant defence of the struggles of the working class in Iran and of the rising social movements in that country. We want regime change - both in Iran and in the imperialist countries. But we know that change must come from below - from the struggles of the working class and social movements - if it is to lead to genuine liberation.

We call on all anti-capitalist forces, progressive political groups and social organisations to join activists of the Iranian left to both oppose imperialism's plans and to organise practical solidarity with the growing movement against war and repression in Iran headed by the working class, women, students and youth.

Now why on earth would people who were in a Stalinoid formation such as NEFAC support such a line? Why on earth would they want to deal with hostility from real out-of-the-closet Stalinist groups in the US who claim that by taking such a purist, anarchist line they're acting as proxies for the CIA and US capital? You tell me!

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Apr 25 2007 22:37
revol68 wrote:
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
revol68 wrote:
ah so now there are differences between NEFAC and Waynes positions, it's not merely semantics as Smash Rich Bastards claims?

Actually I never said it was "merely" a question of semantics. I said "mostly" and "largely" (which, I thought went without saying implied "not entirely"). You really aren't good with nuances, are you? Or else you just read what you want to read. Hmm...

i was nuanced enough to pick up on the fact you were desperately trying to avoid discussing the issue in any depth.

so okay, lets say you think it's 'mostly semantics', well can I ask what bits you think aren't semantics? Wouldn't you say that the claim that anarchists should 'support national self determination' is something abit beyond semantics?

Okay, just this once I'll humor you.

This is my own interpretation of Wayne's position, and I could very well be off here, but I think he excepts more of a 'stages' theory of struggle, where he'll "critically" except a lesser evil (in this case, cross-class anti-imperialist struggles or coaltions) as a necessary wedge to weaken the grip of imperialist super-power nations, Western capitalist hegemony, blah, blah, blah. Once the "outer yoke" is broken then class demands and libertarian communist politics can be more intimately and effectively tied in, and the national struggle can develop into a revolutionary class struggle.

The dominant position (on this topic) in our group, as far as I know, does not support a stages approach to revolutionary struggle, and we do not supprt national, cross-class solutions to "national questions".

That said, when it comes down to it, I think we are all unified in our support for internationalism, class struggle, and a "social approach" to national questions.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Apr 25 2007 22:48

"i... aren't retarded"

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 22:51
MJ wrote:
"i... aren't retarded"

That's Irish for "I'm a total cock."

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 25 2007 22:51
revol68 wrote:
It's also a fuck of alot more than mostly semantics as well, it effects how to relate to various concrete issues in many ways. For example over here it would see us line up behind and offer critical support to the likes of the IRA, or as like in the case of the new WSM position it would see us support a United Ireland as a progressive, lining up behind one nationalist narrative, alas internationalism gets shat out the window.

Revol, what is the NEFAC position on Quebec separatism?

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 22:54
revol68 wrote:
MJ wrote:
"i... aren't retarded"

grammar pedantry can't save your arse from this, cop out boy!

it's hilarious that the 'leadership of ideas' tendency is terrified of actually discussing them in any actual detail, instead we have various Joe Black and Smash Rich Bastards trying to downplay them as largely semantic differences.

You view the leadership of ideas as a term paper, when its really a description of a method of engagement.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Apr 25 2007 22:57
revol68 wrote:
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
revol68 wrote:
ah so now there are differences between NEFAC and Waynes positions, it's not merely semantics as Smash Rich Bastards claims?

Actually I never said it was "merely" a question of semantics. I said "mostly" and "largely" (which, I thought went without saying implied "not entirely"). You really aren't good with nuances, are you? Or else you just read what you want to read. Hmm...

i was nuanced enough to pick up on the fact you were desperately trying to avoid discussing the issue in any depth.

so okay, lets say you think it's 'mostly semantics', well can I ask what bits you think aren't semantics? Wouldn't you say that the claim that anarchists should 'support national self determination' is something abit beyond semantics?

Okay, just this once I'll humor you.

This is my own interpretation of Wayne's position, and I could very well be off here, but I think he excepts more of a 'stages' theory of struggle, where he'll "critically" except a lesser evil (in this case, cross-class anti-imperialist struggles or coaltions) as a necessary wedge to weaken the grip of imperialist super-power nations, Western capitalist hegemony, blah, blah, blah. Once the "outer yoke" is broken then class demands and libertarian communist politics can be more intimately and effectively tied in, and the national struggle can develop into a revolutionary class struggle.

The dominant position (on this topic) in our group, as far as I know, does not support a stages approach to revolutionary struggle, and we do not supprt national, cross-class solutions to "national questions".

Well seeing as I have read his articles and aren't retarded I'd already gotten that much. My question is don't you think that's a pretty fucked up analysis and not one you would expect from an anarcho communist.

It's also a fuck of alot more than mostly semantics as well, it effects how to relate to various concrete issues in many ways. For example over here it would see us line up behind and offer critical support to the likes of the IRA, or as like in the case of the new WSM position it would see us support a United Ireland as a progressive, lining up behind one nationalist narrative, alas internationalism gets shat out the window.

You're both apart of the European Union. Unless there is some serious envy about how they paint their mailboxes in the twenty-six counties its kind've a moot point by now, isn't it?

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Apr 25 2007 22:59

Wayne, I think that your points have been addressed. If you don't think they have I will recap the arguments very briefly now:

Wayne Price wrote:
Apparently, my oponents believe (1) there are no nations who should fight for their freedom from oppression (but they do not necessarily say the same about other forms of non-class oppression, for some unknown reason).

We believe that society is divide into classes, and that the national interst is always the interests of the national bourgoesie.

Quote:
(2) there is no imperialism, in the sense that the capitalist classes of a few nations dominate and exploit the rest of the world.

We believe that imperialism is a global system, and that all nation states, and national bourgoesie are a part of it.

Quote:
(3) they should oppose the military invasion by the U.S. of Iraq and ALSO any military effort of the Iraqis AGAINST the U.S. forces and its puppets (I am not talking about sectarian warfare among different sectors of the Iraqi people). The mighty imperialist U.S. and the impoverished little nation of Iraq are treated as equivalent.

We are against the working class being led into support different capitalist factions in their wars. It is interesting how you divide the 'anti-imperialist 'struggle from the 'sectarian warfare among different sectors of the Iraqi people' as it seems to me that these actions are being carried out by the same groups. Surely this says something about the political nature of the resistance.

Quote:
(4) they are against the slogan of "Immediate, Unilateral, U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq!" (or U.S. Out Now!) --I will not comment on what this means to me.

This is more complex. We are against this as we feel that it is merely empty sloganering, ironically what we are often accused of. If we thought that it was more than an empty slogan we would raise it. For example when there were strikes against the first Iraq war by Turkish workers on the US base near Batman, it was a the right time to raise the slogan organise strikes against the war. It seemed to be a possibility even though that was the only action. Your slogan seems to me to be completly empty leftist rhetoric.

Of course I only speak for EKS in Turkey, and not for everyone else who disagrees with you.

Devrim

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 23:02
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
You view the leadership of ideas as a term paper, when its really a description of a method of engagement.

sorry i always thought it meant seeking to win the arguments within the class but apparently it's about avoiding the issues.

Please show me some place where I've ever avoided expressing my views on a particular issue. Thanx.

Anyhoo... leadership of ideas should be a verb. Not about refining this or that position within a milieu of what is basically an international collection of social rejects but a description of engagement within your class in the real world.

Topic locked