Transval Independance?

[Andropov]

A hypothetical question here.
If the Afrikaners did get an independant Transval free from South Africa.
Would you firstly endorse their autonomy?
And if it did go ahead and the state was gradually established over a period of time would you accept the state as it is if it did indeed have an Afrikaners majority irregaurdless of the hypothetical minority Black population within the Transval?
Or would you activley work to undermine the hypothetical Transval state irregaurless of how many reactionary Afrikaners would think within their hypothical majority in the Transval?

[Revy]

Why?

I don't understand what kind of case they would have. Certainly not one of being oppressed.

If there are people in Transvaal that want to separate, they almost always would have racist motives.

[Bilan]

No. Autonomous bourgeois government is no longer a progressive step, considering economic imperialism will negate their illusions of autonomy anyhow. These struggles are pointless, and erect fictitious national barriers.

[Jorge Miguel]

I would imagine some people on here would recognise the Israelis as the rightful rulers of Palestine and the Boers as the rightful rulers of South Africa given their position regarding Ireland.

[PRC-UTE]

I would imagine some people on here would recognise the Israelis as the rightful rulers of Palestine and the Boers as the rightful rulers of South Africa given their position regarding Ireland.

the white man's burden is popular with some comrades here. :(

[pastradamus]

I would imagine some people on here would recognise the Israelis as the rightful rulers of Palestine and the Boers as the rightful rulers of South Africa given their position regarding Ireland.

This is nonsense. Red Revolutionary simply gave a hypothetical question. He didnt make any statement of his own beliefs. Its completely unfair to suggest this.

Also, I dont believe the transvaal has any legitiamte claim to Independence or autonomy for that matter. Its based purely on racial guidelines and nothing else.

[Jorge Miguel]

This is nonsense. Red Revolutionary simply gave a hypothetical question. He didnt make any statement of his own beliefs. Its completely unfair to suggest this.RR was testing a hypothesis. My post was not in contradiction to his but it's interesting that those who support the northern Ireland settler state, seamingly oppose the the Israeli state and judging from their silence here, the South African Transval and Orange Freestate.

Because you know man, smash all borders overnight, "the will of the people" and all that jazz. Such an absurd ultra-leftist line on the national question is pro-imperialist by implication. But it doesn't matter, Trotskyist, Council Communist, and Anarchist first world ideologies are largely confined to a particular geographical area.

[Hoxhaist]

transvaal independence is a bourgeois racist, neo-colonialist movement like Israel and not based on legitimate grievances in the region in question.

[Devrim]

RR was testing a hypothesis. My post was not in contradiction to his but it's interesting that those who support the northern Ireland settler state, seamingly oppose the the Israeli state and judging from their silence here, the South African Transval and Orange Freestate.

Who exactly are you suggesting supports the Northern Irish state? I don't think people actually do that on here (though there may be one or two). What you mean is that they don't support the nationalist armed gangs that are opposed to it.


Because you know man, smash all borders overnight, "the will of the people" and all that jazz. Such an absurd ultra-leftist line on the national question is pro-imperialist by implication. But it doesn't matter, Trotskyist, Council Communist, and Anarchist first world ideologies are largely confined to a particular geographical area.

Actually left communists, who are probably the most consistent proponents of an internationalist line on this site, never talk about 'smashing all boarders overnight' and certainly never talk about the will of the people. Also, the two left communists who post mostly on here, Leo and Myself, live in the Middle East, which I don't think fits in with your geographical argument at all. The ICC, of which we are members, has members in Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, the Philippines, India, as well as Turkey, non of which fit into your argument either.

Incidentally, both Leo and I both come from ethnic groups that have large well know national liberation movements, and both of us have relatives who supported those movements and have served time in prison and been tortured for political reasons.

Devrim

[Jorge Miguel]

Who exactly are you suggesting supports the Northern Irish state?Posters such as Ranma, etc, have posted saying that the existance of the 6 counties is "the will of the people".


What you mean is that they don't support the nationalist armed gangs that are opposed to it.Neither do I support paramilitary violence by Republicans. I presume that is what you mean when you refer to "armed gangs", as if they are some sort of criminal outfit.


eo and Myself, live in the Middle East, which I don't think fits in with your geographical argument at all. The ICC, of which we are members, has members in Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, the Philippines, India, as well as Turkey, non of which fit into your argument either.
While that may seem impressive at first glance, how many members in those countries? I'm sure just about every tendency has members all over the world but Trotskyist, Left Communist and Anarchist tendencies are generally concentrated in the first world and rarely lead any struggle anywhere. The Anarchists and Left Communists rely on history, Bordiga and Spain, etc.


Incidentally, both Leo and I both come from ethnic groups that have large well know national liberation movements, and both of us have relatives who supported those movements and have served time in prison and been tortured for political reasons.Now that you've wheeled out that one, how about the wink and nudge that the ICC are "semi-legal" and the other such nonsense that you've posted in an effort to coax some credibility.

Incidently, just about every Irish member of this forum could claim what you've just claimed.

[MarxSchmarx]

While that may seem impressive at first glance, how many members in those countries? I'm sure just about every tendency has members all over the world but Trotskyist, Left Communist and Anarchist tendencies are generally concentrated in the first world and rarely lead any struggle anywhere. The Anarchists and Left Communists rely on history, Bordiga and Spain, etc.I can't speak for the left communists,I don:t know enough about them.


But no, it's only that anarchists in the first world rely on history bordiga and spain etc... For starters lets not forget how backward spain was even twenty years ago. It's only become a "First world country" thanks to a massive infusion of cash from the EU in the last 15 years.

But I digress.

And such colonized and brutalized nations such as Korea, Argentina, Ukraine and China had thriving and muscular anarchist movements that would put the CNT to shame. And from what I understand, the only Trotskyist party to ever get anywhere the world over was in ... drum roll ... Sri Lanka.

And lest we think this is getting captivated by history, ever heard of the Zapatistas? The Landless Peasants Movement?

As to the OT I wouldnt be opposed to a Transval Bantustan that strips them of their south African citizenship and recognized as a puppet government of the ANC. Give those Afrikaner neo-nazis a taste of their own medicine.

[robbo203]

A hypothetical question here.
If the Afrikaners did get an independant Transval free from South Africa.
Would you firstly endorse their autonomy?
And if it did go ahead and the state was gradually established over a period of time would you accept the state as it is if it did indeed have an Afrikaners majority irregaurdless of the hypothetical minority Black population within the Transval?
Or would you activley work to undermine the hypothetical Transval state irregaurless of how many reactionary Afrikaners would think within their hypothical majority in the Transval?


Socialists oppose ALL nationalism whether it be Afrikaner nationalism, Irish nationalism, Israeli nationalism or Palestinian nationalism. Nationalism is the primary way in which capitalism cooptes the working classs into supporting it by promoting the false idea that the citizens of a so called nation share a common identity or common interest. They dont. Socialism depends on class consciousness and nationalism directly contradicts the growth of class consciousness

[Leo]

While that may seem impressive at first glance, how many members in those countries? I'm sure just about every tendency has members all over the world but Trotskyist, Left Communist and Anarchist tendencies are generally concentrated in the first worldWell our second biggest and fastest growing section is in Mexico. In lots of south American as well as far Asian countries, new sympathizing groups are appearing and we are involved with a series of discussions, meetings, conferences etc. with these groups. It is simply wrong to say that we are "basically concentrated" in Europe. It is above all unfair to all our militants who aren't in Europe.


and rarely lead any struggle anywhere.We don't see our role as leading struggles. We think that "The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."


The Anarchists and Left Communists rely on history, Bordiga and Spain, etc.I don't know about anarchists on this but certainly history, not just history of the communist left but that of the previous modes of production, capitalism, the workers' movement, proletarian revolutions, defeats, counter-revolutions, class struggles are vital. We uphold the historical materialist method after all.


Now that you've wheeled out that one, how about the wink and nudge that the ICC are "semi-legal" and the other such nonsense that you've posted in an effort to coax some credibility.Actually semi-legal is not entirely accurate. In Turkey, our press is illegal, so is our organization. This is the situation which lots of our sections operate under, especially the non-European ones. Our sections in so-called democratic countries have no legal existence either.

[Devrim]

Jorge has no real political argument here. What he attempts to do is to smear the people whose argument he opposes.

The first method is the typical old Stalinist method of amalgamation;


Posters such as Ranma, etc, have posted saying that the existance of the 6 counties is "the will of the people".

Basically here he is trying to discredit everybody who argues against Irish nationalism by tying them to 'Ranma' and implying that they have the same arguments. Of course there are posters who have consistently argued against these politics who he could use as examples, but instead he mentions somebody who posts so much on here that I have never heard of her. Nor have I heard of the poster 'etc'.


Neither do I support paramilitary violence by Republicans. I presume that is what you mean when you refer to "armed gangs", as if they are some sort of criminal outfit.

The second method is to imply that left communists are lining up with the British state by suggesting that the Republicans are 'criminals' reminiscent of Thatcher's decision to criminalise the IRA. Note that we didn't refer to them as criminals. It is another thing introduced by Jorge in his attempt to smear people.


While that may seem impressive at first glance, how many members in those countries? I'm sure just about every tendency has members all over the world but Trotskyist, Left Communist and Anarchist tendencies are generally concentrated in the first world and rarely lead any struggle anywhere. The Anarchists and Left Communists rely on history, Bordiga and Spain, etc.

The next one is the you are tiny, what struggles did you ever lead card, an old classic. What we didn't do is lead struggles where the working class got massacred on behalf of its own bourgoiese.

Of course we could go on to have a political discussion about the strength of the working class and how third-worldism basically leads to an abandonment of class politics and to workers supporting different nationalist factions, but Jorge isn't interested in a discussion. He is just interested in slander.


Now that you've wheeled out that one, how about the wink and nudge that the ICC are "semi-legal" and the other such nonsense that you've posted in an effort to coax some credibility.

Now, the fact that we are not the people that he tried to caricturture us as, is merely an 'effort to gain credibility'. Please excuse me whilst I go out and change my nationality, ethnic group, religious background, wife, job,...

Our point is that the argument is important. Revolutionary politics are important. We are not the ones trying to smear people because they live in the 'first world', and certainly we don't accuse people of 'trying to coax credibility' when they don't fit into the straw man that we created.


Incidently, just about every Irish member of this forum could claim what you've just claimed.

I would doubt that thet is at all true, but even if it were it is not the point. We are not trying to create some sort of hierarchy of suffering or martyrdom. We will leave that to religious groups and the various leftist organisations which take there ideas of martyrdom along with its iconography.

Devrim

[PRC-UTE]

The second method is to imply that left communists are lining up with the British state by suggesting that the Republicans are 'criminals' reminiscent of Thatcher's decision to criminalise the IRA. Note that we didn't refer to them as criminals. It is another thing introduced by Jorge in his attempt to smear people.

You've called the republicans 'gangsters' in nearly every discussion we've had.

[PRC-UTE]

Socialists oppose ALL nationalism whether it be Afrikaner nationalism, Irish nationalism, Israeli nationalism or Palestinian nationalism. Nationalism is the primary way in which capitalism cooptes the working classs into supporting it by promoting the false idea that the citizens of a so called nation share a common identity or common interest. They dont. Socialism depends on class consciousness and nationalism directly contradicts the growth of class consciousness

So was Marx not a socialist? :lol:

[robbo203]

So was Marx not a socialist? :lol:


Marx did not support nationalism as an end in itself but as a means of furthering the development of capitalism and hence, its gravedigger,the proletariat. I think even in this regard he was mistaken in taking this stance - it sent out the wrong the signals - but by the 1870s there is evidence that he was already beginning to change his mind on that score.

So yes he was still a socialist. Nationalists on the other hand who want and venerate the idea of the nation-state for its own sake are not socialists but pro-capitalists masquerading as socialists

[PeaderO'Donnell]

So yes he was still a socialist. Nationalists on the other hand who want and venerate the idea of the nation-state for its own sake are not socialists but pro-capitalists masquerading as socialists

In the case of the Irish Free State from 1973 or so onwards the ruling class made a decision to undermine and downplay all national sentiment because in our case it is tied into memories of struggle against the British state.

Another point is that IRSP are not racial nationalists and are opposed to any racism towards new immigrants. I would presume that they are even against immigration controls.....And at least in theory they seek the withering away of all states (though their support for Cuba and Chavez could lead one to question that). They also are not "stage-ists"

Calling them nationalists in any bourgious sense than would wrong.

However do you believe that ALL regional and cultural differences will disappear under communism? I dont.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Posters such as Ranma, etc, have posted saying that the existance of the 6 counties is "the will of the people".



And indeed so has a member of the CPI (who also claimed that Wales, Scotland and Cornwall are also not colonies of Westminster...).

[Bilan]

I would imagine some people on here would recognise the Israelis as the rightful rulers of Palestine and the Boers as the rightful rulers of South Africa given their position regarding Ireland.

When did anyone mention who was the 'rightful rulers' of anything?
If you can't argue against the point, don't try and misconstrue it, or make shit up.

[Bilan]

While that may seem impressive at first glance, how many members in those countries? I'm sure just about every tendency has members all over the world but Trotskyist, Left Communist and Anarchist tendencies are generally concentrated in the first world and rarely lead any struggle anywhere. The Anarchists and Left Communists rely on history, Bordiga and Spain, etc.

You realize this actually damages your position, right? We learn from history, we don't think we're above it, or separated from it, but part of it. It's a shame you haven't learnt anything from the past.
And the idea that they're concentrated in the first world is a weak, baseless argument. (It's also ridiculous as the First World, which necessitates the Second World, does not exist, considering the absence of the latter. Skip the archaic terminology as it no longer makes sense).

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Well our second biggest and fastest growing section is in Mexico. In lots of south American as well as far Asian countries, new sympathizing groups are appearing and we are involved with a series of discussions, meetings, conferences etc. with these groups. It is simply wrong to say that we are "basically concentrated" in Europe. It is above all unfair to all our militants who aren't in Europe.


And yet the ICC has been accused of euro-racism by others on the Communist Left.

http://gci-icg.org/english/communism10.htm#icc

[Jorge Miguel]

Devrim:


The second method is to imply that left communists are lining up with the British state by suggesting that the Republicans are 'criminals' reminiscent of Thatcher's decision to criminalise the IRA. Note that we didn't refer to them as criminals. It is another thing introduced by Jorge in his attempt to smear people.How can one be a gangster but not a criminal?

The dictionary defines gangster as 'a member of a gang of criminals, esp. a racketeer.'

Sources:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gangster
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gangster

So your intention is indeed to criminalise people. The only "smearing" is coming from you.


Now, the fact that we are not the people that he tried to caricturture us as, is merely an 'effort to gain credibility'. Please excuse me whilst I go out and change my nationality, ethnic group, religious background, wife, job,...

Our point is that the argument is important. Revolutionary politics are important. We are not the ones trying to smear people because they live in the 'first world', and certainly we don't accuse people of 'trying to coax credibility' when they don't fit into the straw man that we created.
As I said, just about every Irish member of this forum fits into that catagory. Some have even been to prison and some have worked underground. What's the point of boasting about it? I don't see anyone else rambling on about their personal life to gain credibility.


I would doubt that thet is at all true, but even if it were it is not the point. We are not trying to create some sort of hierarchy of suffering or martyrdom. We will leave that to religious groups and the various leftist organisations which take there ideas of martyrdom along with its iconography.Then why claim the ICC is "illegal", "semi-legal", etc. Perhaps under Turkish constitutional law which forbids political parties from advocating the sort of economic changes Communists envisage. But it's arcane and outdated, the fact is that the TKP and EMEP have stood in election quite recently with no question of legality hanging over their heads. If the TKP, which is quite a large organisation and the EMEP, which has a daily publication, have no question of legality, then there is no chance the ICC is considered a threat to the Turkish state to the extent were it would be actively prosecuted. Your arguement is retentive, there are all sorts of scraps of law one could use to claim ones own illegality - it doesn't mean it's a reality either.

[Bilan]

And yet the ICC has been accused of euro-racism by others on the Communist Left.

http://gci-icg.org/english/communism10.htm#icc

Not only does this not contradict Leo's point, but it makes no sense.
What the hell is Euro-racism?
Ethnocentrism? Europe is not a race, and it's inhabitants are not a 'race', but made up of many different 'races' (in the sense of socially constructed, fictitious divisions).

Not much good making an accusation that doesn't make any sense.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Not only does this not contradict Leo's point, but it makes no sense.
What the hell is Euro-racism?
Ethnocentrism? Europe is not a race, and it's inhabitants are not a 'race', but made up of many different 'races' (in the sense of socially constructed, fictitious divisions).

Not much good making an accusation that doesn't make any sense.

Obviously they mean that the ICC is infected by European racism....Whatever you may say about race being a social construct the fact is that some people believe in its existence and look down and even oppress other people who they consider to be part of a different race...Maybe you should actually read the article....

I am not making the accusation...The Internationalist Communist Group is.

[robbo203]

In the case of the Irish Free State from 1973 or so onwards the ruling class made a decision to undermine and downplay all national sentiment because in our case it is tied into memories of struggle against the British state.

Another point is that IRSP are not racial nationalists and are opposed to any racism towards new immigrants. I would presume that they are even against immigration controls.....And at least in theory they seek the withering away of all states (though their support for Cuba and Chavez could lead one to question that). They also are not "stage-ists"

Calling them nationalists in any bourgious sense than would wrong.

However do you believe that ALL regional and cultural differences will disappear under communism? I dont.

Of course I do not hold that regional and cultural differences would disappear in communism; nor should they. But this is totally different from nationalism which is inextricably linked with the idea of the state (you refer to the Irish Free State which precisely demonstrates my point)

The IRSP in advocating a so called socialist republic are effectively nationalists and ipso facto pro capitalist. any attempt to promote the idea of commonality of interests and identity that transcends class is by that very fact an attempt to dilute classs consciousness and impede socialism. The IRSP may pay lip service to the idea of the withering away of states just as the Leninists pay lip service to socialism (but in practice are only concerned with state capitalism) but lip service means nothing.

You either support nationalism and the nation-state - the territorial creation of capitalism - or you oppose it uncompromisingly as a socialist. There is no fence sitting on this matter

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No. Autonomous bourgeois government is no longer a progressive step, considering economic imperialism will negate their illusions of autonomy anyhow.

This is a very important point - capitalism is a global phenomenon and it is ludicrous to think any further subdivisions will effect any major change, let alone abolish it.

Just what difference does it make to be ruled over from London rather than Brussels?

[Dimentio]

As for Transvaal independence. There are already white separatist movements in South Africa. Thing is that they will fail miserably. It would be like if all French aristocrats in the 1789 revolution had tried to form an own independent kingdom in Bretagne by throwing out all non-nobles.

[Killfacer]

Was this really just a stupid and smug way to prove a point about ireland?

[Hoggy_RS]

Of course I do not hold that regional and cultural differences would disappear in communism; nor should they. But this is totally different from nationalism which is inextricably linked with the idea of the state (you refer to the Irish Free State which precisely demonstrates my point)

The IRSP in advocating a so called socialist republic are effectively nationalists and ipso facto pro capitalist. any attempt to promote the idea of commonality of interests and identity that transcends class is by that very fact an attempt to dilute classs consciousness and impede socialism. The IRSP may pay lip service to the idea of the withering away of states just as the Leninists pay lip service to socialism (but in practice are only concerned with state capitalism) but lip service means nothing.

You either support nationalism and the nation-state - the territorial creation of capitalism - or you oppose it uncompromisingly as a socialist. There is no fence sitting on this matter

its not specifically nationalist to want a free & united ireland. I would see it as anti-imperialist for the irish people to want to be united outisde of the united kingdom. But i suppose the ultra left just cant see this

[pastradamus]

Marx did not support nationalism as an end in itself but as a means of furthering the development of capitalism and hence, its gravedigger,the proletariat. I think even in this regard he was mistaken in taking this stance - it sent out the wrong the signals - but by the 1870s there is evidence that he was already beginning to change his mind on that score.

So yes he was still a socialist. Nationalists on the other hand who want and venerate the idea of the nation-state for its own sake are not socialists but pro-capitalists masquerading as socialists

Yes and No. Marx spoke about Nationalism as being an enemy of Working class in some area's. One must remember that the Word "nationalism" is of different meaning today in some contexts, particularly leftist ones. However if we go back to its original meaning and textbook definition it is plausible to say Marx was Nationalistic in some regards. He wrote various pretexts on Russia,France, Britain, Germany etc,etc etc..
While I would not call him a Nationalist for the varying pretexts, I would however say that he recognized splits in the Working class depending on regional and national boundaries. This is not, In most cases anyway - tied to economic difference (bar the Russia pretext) but tied to National difference. Marx went on divulging with the various plan's or suggested methods for Communist revolution in differing states. He was an convinced supporter of Workers Internationalism but still recognized some differences based on National grounds with the working class.

[Hoxhaist]

Nationalism is compatible with building socialism when the nationalist struggle is used to fight for National Liberation. Where there are legitimate grievances against an exploitative majority or fascist occupiers/collaborators, the workers of the exploited miniority must band together but not exclusively on racial/ethnic lines to fight the enemy that exploits them. This may require delineation between the exploiters and exploited along ethnic lines but great care should be taken not stray into xenophobia or fascist genocide. However once National Liberation has been won, ethnic chauvinism must be abandoned and members of the exploitative group ought to be accepted as long as they abandon any privilege associated with their previous state of power. As Building Socialism begins, all ethnic nationalism must be eliminated and any groups advocating apartheid-like oppression of any group or using ethnic discriminatory language or practice ought to be suppressed. Of course once Socialism has been established then nationalism has no place, but it can be a precursor that sets apart an area where socialism can be built in one country.

[pastradamus]

its not specifically nationalist to want a free & united ireland. I would see it as anti-imperialist for the irish people to want to be united outisde of the united kingdom. But i suppose the ultra left just cant see this

The Republican Agenda is one of National Self Determination. The Word nationalist is branded on the IRA through the media. This in many a sense is true to its word. However If I may ask people here a question....

How often is it that one hears of the LVF, UDA or Orange Order as Being "nationalist"? The Orange order are a perfect example of a group which holds dear a set of masonic and cultural tradition's and Beliefs that it is in someway superior to all other cultures and traditions. Not only that, but it also gives off an aire that it is "Patriotic" to its traditions. Albeit to an excessive degree.

[robbo203]

its not specifically nationalist to want a free & united ireland. I would see it as anti-imperialist for the irish people to want to be united outisde of the united kingdom. But i suppose the ultra left just cant see this


How on earth can it not be nationalist to want something called a free and united ireland. There is no ryme or reason to this. Nationalism ids about so called national territorial units having and exercising sovereignty over that domain - and of course all the cultural baggae that goes with that. You inadvertantly indicate precisely why such nationalism must be uncompromisingly opposed in wanting to unite the something called the "Irish people". Thats it - uniting the irish workers with the irish capitalists in which any notion of class identity is utterly lost

[redSHARP]

if its the will of the people (that being a racist reactionary government), then fine. they can set up as many borders and draw as many lines on the map as they want, but communism and anarchism doesn't stop at the borders. if they do set up a new Boer state, then we have another country to raise hell in.:laugh:

[Devrim]

Then why claim the ICC is "illegal", "semi-legal", etc. Perhaps under Turkish constitutional law which forbids political parties from advocating the sort of economic changes Communists envisage. But it's arcane and outdated, the fact is that the TKP and EMEP have stood in election quite recently with no question of legality hanging over their heads. If the TKP, which is quite a large organisation and the EMEP, which has a daily publication, have no question of legality, then there is no chance the ICC is considered a threat to the Turkish state to the extent were it would be actively prosecuted. Your arguement is retentive, there are all sorts of scraps of law one could use to claim ones own illegality - it doesn't mean it's a reality either.

I don't want to give credibility to Jorge's smears by even replying to them , but I do feel forced to comment on this point for those who don't know what he is refering to. The TKP's main front organisation is called the Patriotic Front, and they were absolutely horrified when on 'anti-war' marches last year left communists raised the slogan of 'down with Turkish imperialism', their slogan at the time being 'We won't let the US divide our country, which to us is one step away from open anti-Kurdish chauvanism.

So yes, these sort of Turkish nationalist nearly openly chauvanist sort of 'communists' are legal in Turkey today. Just as Türkiye Komünist Fırkası was in the past.

Devrim

[Leo]

And yet the ICC has been accused of euro-racism by others on the Communist Left.

http://gci-icg.org/english/communism10.htm#icc (http://www.anonym.to/?http://gci-icg.org/english/communism10.htm#icc) Yes wow a bunch in Belgium accuses an organization with sections in numerous non-European countries with "Euro-racism", very impressive and convincing, we all must be just a self-hating lot :rolleyes:

Or maybe, just maybe this has got more to do with the organization in question not really being an organization of the communist left anymore but a third-worldist organization which supported things like the 9/11 attacks and which criticizes Bin Laden for being a "centrist".


But it's arcane and outdated, the fact is that the TKP and EMEP have stood in election quite recently with no question of legality hanging over their heads. If the TKP, which is quite a large organisation and the EMEP, which has a daily publication, have no question of legalityBoth are legal registered parliamentary parties that are programmatically not for the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie, or for class dictatorship or anything similar. Their presses etc. also are registered and do not include anything that is openly against the class regime in Turkey, never included an open condemnation of the actions of Turkish imperialism and so forth. TKP as Devrim mentioned, is nothing but a left-mouthpiece of Turkish nationalism. Incidentally, EMEP used to be the legal wing of an illegal organization, the TDKP, but it basically sucked everything out of the TDKP and turned it into an empty shell. EMEP is actually not that far away from TKP's position with their main emphasis on the "struggle" for an independent Turkey. Yes, all this is so dangerous for the Turkish ruling class, if these people are allowed by the Turkish regime, everyone else has to be allowed by them as well!

[Guerrilla22]

Why is it that the solution to all disagreements along political and ethnic lines seems to be to form a break away country? are the people of transvaal oppressed any more than the people in any other part of South Africa?

[pastradamus]

For my Money The most oppressed people of South Africa are in Cape town, the so-called "Cape Coloured"

[Andropov]

Socialists oppose ALL nationalism whether it be Afrikaner nationalism, Irish nationalism, Israeli nationalism or Palestinian nationalism. Nationalism is the primary way in which capitalism cooptes the working classs into supporting it by promoting the false idea that the citizens of a so called nation share a common identity or common interest. They dont. Socialism depends on class consciousness and nationalism directly contradicts the growth of class consciousness

Really?
This is interesting.
Why then did Marx support the Fenians?
Why did he say that,
"the sole means of hastening the social revolution in England was to make Ireland independant".
Marx supported the Irish peoples struggle for National Self determination.

Didnt Engels even help hide a Fenian in his house?
Even look at what Engels said about the Irish.
"The Irish formed a distinct nationality and so long as Ireland was under the domination of the English it would be an insult to Irish working men to ask them to submit even to the English Federal Council of the International".

By your reckoning both Marx and Engels were not Socialists.
National Liberation goes hand in hand with Socialism in Ireland, Marx recognised this, Engels recognised this, Connolly recognised this, Lenin recognised this and Costello recognised this.
But yet the trots and anarchsits here make absurd claims that a peoples right to self determination is in fact bourgeoisie and Capitalist.

[robbo203]

Really?
This is interesting.
Why then did Marx support the Fenians?
Why did he say that,
"the sole means of hastening the social revolution in England was to make Ireland independant".
Marx supported the Irish peoples struggle for National Self determination.

Didnt Engels even help hide a Fenian in his house?
Even look at what Engels said about the Irish.
"The Irish formed a distinct nationality and so long as Ireland was under the domination of the English it would be an insult to Irish working men to ask them to submit even to the English Federal Council of the International".

By your reckoning both Marx and Engels were not Socialists.
National Liberation goes hand in hand with Socialism in Ireland, Marx recognised this, Engels recognised this, Connolly recognised this, Lenin recognised this and Costello recognised this.
But yet the trots and anarchsits here make absurd claims that a peoples right to self determination is in fact bourgeoisie and Capitalist.

It is not my reckoning that Marx and Engels were not socialists because they gave qualified support for Irish nationalism. I think they were wrong but that doesnt mean they were not socialists.

The thing is they did not support nationalism per se but saw it as a means to an end - facilitating the development of capitalism anfd hence capitalism's gravedigger, the proletariat. This is why they supported some some nationalisms but not others eg among the southern slavs. With respect to Irish nationalism they felt it would help to weaken the chauvinism of the english proletariat. They had no illusions about the claptrap that is nationalist ideology itself. Thus, Marx wrote to Kugelman in 1869

The English working class...will never be able to do anything decisive here in England before they separate their attitude towards Ireland definitively from that of the ruling classes, and not only make common cause with the Irish, but even take the initiative in dissolving the Union established in 1801. And this must be done not out of sympathy with the Irish, but as a demand on the interests of the English proletariat. If not the English proletariat will forever remain bound to the leading strings of the ruling classes, because they will be forced to make a common front with them against Ireland.

However by 1871 Marx was, I think, already beginning to change his views on nationalism as this quote testifies

The highest heroic effort of which old society is still capable is national war; and this is now proved to be a mere governmental humbug, intended to defer the struggle of classes and to be thrown aside as soon as that class struggle bursts out into civil war. Class rule is no longer able to disguise itself in a national uniform; the national governments are one as against the proletariat!"

The point is that today, whatever Marx or Enegls might have said, nationalism - any nationalism - is utterly reactionary. If there ever was any justification before for supporting nationalist struggle - I personally think there never was and M and E made a clear error of judgement - there can be no excuse for supporting nationalism now. Capitalism is a global system. Ireland is part of the EU as is the UK. Multinational corporations dominant the flow of capital across an increasingly globalised economy.

To advocate nationalism today is to imply a commality of interests and identity between workers and capitalists which probably more than any other factor I can think of (with the possible exception of the example of the Soviet Union's state capitalist dictatorship which utterly besmirched the good name of socialism), impedes the development of a socialist consciousness. Anyone who advocates nationalism today, in any shape or form, stands in the way of the development of a world socialist working class movement and, objectively speaking, sides with the enemies of socialism . In short to advocate nationalism today is to support capitalism.

[Cumannach]

Hey you forgot to add your obligatory offtopic 'The Soviet Union was worse than Hitler' line to your post. Oh no wait. My mistake.

[Andropov]

I think you misunderstand the Nationalism that the likes of Marx, Engels, Connolly, Lenin and Costello all had in mind with regards Ireland.
All these Socialist thinkers identified National Liberation of Ireland as a key component of the emancipation of the Irish Working Class.
It was a struggle for a peoples right to self determination.
National Liberation and Socialism must go hand in hand wih regards Ireland.
I am not advocating a kind of 19th Century Nationalism, either are any of these Socialist thinkers or even the IRSP.
British presence in Ireland will always be a reactionary force that will help maintain the status quo and the bourgeoisie system.

[PRC-UTE]

I don't want to give credibility to Jorge's smears by even replying to them , but I do feel forced to comment on this point for those who don't know what he is refering to. The TKP's main front organisation is called the Patriotic Front, and they were absolutely horrified when on 'anti-war' marches last year left communists raised the slogan of 'down with Turkish imperialism', their slogan at the time being 'We won't let the US divide our country, which to us is one step away from open anti-Kurdish chauvanism.

So yes, these sort of Turkish nationalist nearly openly chauvanist sort of 'communists' are legal in Turkey today. Just as Türkiye Komünist Fırkası was in the past.

Devrim

there's a couple different convos going in this discussion, why not split them off?

[FreeFocus]

I do not support any settler state. They need to be smashed.

[pastradamus]

How on earth can it not be nationalist to want something called a free and united ireland. There is no ryme or reason to this. Nationalism ids about so called national territorial units having and exercising sovereignty over that domain - and of course all the cultural baggae that goes with that. You inadvertantly indicate precisely why such nationalism must be uncompromisingly opposed in wanting to unite the something called the "Irish people". Thats it - uniting the irish workers with the irish capitalists in which any notion of class identity is utterly lost

Throughout its history Irish Nationalism has, if anything promoted Leftism. Through the actual National Movement itself. The Boers in the Transvaal province in South Africa are much the opposite. That is, using Nationalism to promote racism and far-right wing views.

[Charles Xavier]

This is not a real nation. Its like Santa Cruz in Bolivia, its a bunch of millionaires wanting a tax haven to destabilize South Africa.

[progressive_lefty]

Don't have much sympathy for the white South Africans. We get a stack of them moving to Australia 'because its a white country', and happy to talk about why there was many good things about 'apartheid'.

[robbo203]

Throughout its history Irish Nationalism has, if anything promoted Leftism. Through the actual National Movement itself. The Boers in the Transvaal province in South Africa are much the opposite. That is, using Nationalism to promote racism and far-right wing views.


Thats not much to go by. There is leftism and leftism. Many leftists in my view are wedded to a dead-end state capitalist vision of the future and advocate merely the reform of capitalism rather than its complete abolition. The argument against nationalism still stands. It is a fundamental distraction from the class struggle and effectively serves to perpetuate a capitalist ideology with its inherent supposition of so called commonality if interests between workers and capitalists

Talking of the Boers, I recall reading somewhere that some on the left actually supported the Boers in the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902) against British imperialism. Mind you it was British imperialism in the form of the colonial governement that was responsible for setting up some of the key building blocks of what was later to become the apartheid system - such as the first native reserves and the first pass laws

[robbo203]

This is not a real nation. Its like Santa Cruz in Bolivia, its a bunch of millionaires wanting a tax haven to destabilize South Africa.

All nations are unreal in that sense - or to use the apt expression of Benedict Anderson - are simply "imagined communities". Nationalism is an aspect of the rise of capitalism, it helps underpin capitalism and will die with capitalism when the working class movement matures and decisively rejects all nationalism.

Some "boers" or to be more precise, afrikaans-speaking whites, (of which I think there are now about 4 million) no doubt seriously believe they constitute a "nation" and by the dubious criteria of nationalists, their claim to be a nation is no less or no more legitimate than that of any other so called nation. You are incidentally talking nonsense, if you imagine that most afrikaaners are millionaires. Many of the most reactionary elements come from relatively poor backgrounds

[pastradamus]

Thats not much to go by. There is leftism and leftism. Many leftists in my view are wedded to a dead-end state capitalist vision of the future and advocate merely the reform of capitalism rather than its complete abolition. The argument against nationalism still stands. It is a fundamental distraction from the class struggle and effectively serves to perpetuate a capitalist ideology with its inherent supposition of so called commonality if interests between workers and capitalists

Talking of the Boers, I recall reading somewhere that some on the left actually supported the Boers in the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902) against British imperialism. Mind you it was British imperialism in the form of the colonial governement that was responsible for setting up some of the key building blocks of what was later to become the apartheid system - such as the first native reserves and the first pass laws

I touched on this Issue a while ago in this thread; http://www.revleft.com/vb/understanding-easter-1916-t106142/index2.html

I think for one to say that Irish Nationalism, in its historical context is akin to all other forms of nationalism is absurd. There are key differences when it comes to comparing it to most cases of Nationalism. Its not like the Nationalism of Hitler, Mussolini or Franco and were all regimes opposed by Irish Republicans. Irish nationalism actually helped ebb on the creation of Irish Socialism. The seperation of the working class in Northern Ireland's problems lie with the creation of the Orange Order. A group created to promote religious bigotry and anti-catholic sentiment. This paved the way for a split between Irish Catholics and Protestants and secarianism is the biggest split in Northern Ireland today - Not Republicanism or Irish Nationalism.

In comparison to the Transval province you have a group totally racially driven with little else to say in way of independance but hate.

[robbo203]

I touched on this Issue a while ago in this thread; http://www.revleft.com/vb/understanding-easter-1916-t106142/index2.html

I think for one to say that Irish Nationalism, in its historical context is akin to all other forms of nationalism is absurd. There are key differences when it comes to comparing it to most cases of Nationalism. Its not like the Nationalism of Hitler, Mussolini or Franco and were all regimes opposed by Irish Republicans. Irish nationalism actually helped ebb on the creation of Irish Socialism. The seperation of the working class in Northern Ireland's problems lie with the creation of the Orange Order. A group created to promote religious bigotry and anti-catholic sentiment. This paved the way for a split between Irish Catholics and Protestants and secarianism is the biggest split in Northern Ireland today - Not Republicanism or Irish Nationalism.

In comparison to the Transval province you have a group totally racially driven with little else to say in way of independance but hate.

I dont doubt for one moment that irish nationalism is different from palestinian nationalism or Israeli nationalism or Afrikaner nationalism. Of course there are all sorts of cultural and political differences between different nationalisms. But the essence of nationalism is the same in all cases. It is this that I am attacking. There is no way you can reconcile being a marxist or communist or anarchist and advocating the idea of a nation-state. No doubt you will be saying again that Marx supported nationalist struggles. Ive dealt with this point several times. He supported such struggles not as an end in itself but as a means to an end - the removal of obstacles to the development of capitalism. I think he made an error of judgment in that respect but at any rate Marx was no nationalist

[Andropov]

There is no way you can reconcile being a marxist or communist or anarchist and advocating the idea of a nation-state. No doubt you will be saying again that Marx supported nationalist struggles. Ive dealt with this point several times. He supported such struggles not as an end in itself but as a means to an end - the removal of obstacles to the development of capitalism. I think he made an error of judgment in that respect but at any rate Marx was no nationalist

No, he supported National Liberation movements because he saw it as a stepping stone to economic emancipation.
It was not Marx who was wrong, it is the trendy left who ignore this simple fact.