On comments about the Spanish Anarchists

[Pogue]

Certain members of this board have said on a number of occasions in the past that the Spanish anarchists were no better than the IRA in that both killed innocent civilians. I knew this not to be true from my studies of the war, but I hadn't actually found any statistics. But I was compelled too by the fact the claim has been used against me in debates a number of times and as a general stain on anarchists so I did a bit of additional research and found this. Everything I quote is an extract from Anthony Beevor's much acclaimed book 'The Battle For Spain' (I'm sure you've heard of it, but it can be found on Amazon and if you're a Londoner, in Freedom Press in Whitechapel, the better place to buy it from). Its fantastic.

I think the most important thing to remember when dealing with the treatment of members of the clergy in this period was the role they had in Spain at the time. Contrary to what the fascists said and the hysterical capitalist press repeated, the clergy were by no means innocent. The Vatican openly supported the fascists and tried to encourage others to do so, and for years, the clergy had been the symbol of privilige and heirachy, enjoying great deals of wealth in a country full of poverty. It iwas well documented how Catholic priests in Spain often physically fought for the fascists, and betrayed their people by passing on information to the fascists. And of course, Franco himself was deeply Catholic and one of his justifications for his brutal uprising was that he had to defend Catholicism in Spain.

The repressive social role of the Church is well documented, as I have said, but the approach of those involved in the events of 1936 probably hilight the anarchist's attitudes towards the Church best:


The killing of the clergy was far from universal and with the exception of the Basque country, where the Church was untouched, there was no marked regional apttern. In depressed rural areas the priests were often as poverty-stricken and ill-educated as their parishioners. Those who had taken as much trouble over burying the poor as the rich were often spared.

As is seen, the violence was not random. Nor was it sanctioned. There is evidence of the FAI dealing harshly with members who carried out attacks on people which were not sanctioned by the group and its democratic processes, contrary to what some members of this board (namely IRA apologists) have said. The following paragraph comes from a response to several anarchists killing someone a man who had blacklisted CNT members from work:


This murder was condemned at once by the CNT-FAI leadership and they promised the immediate execution of any of their members who killed out of personal motives.

Contrast this to official IRA policy of bombing city centres.

Also noted is how people have spoken of the breakdown of order and the emergence of crime and general violent acts in revolutionary areas, dealt with here by Beevor:

It appears that freed convicts were responsible for a considerable part of the violence and much of the looting. The real anarchists burned banknotes because they symbolized the greed of society, but those they had released from prison did not change their habits with the arrival of the social revolution. The excesses of unreformed criminals caused the CNT-FAI to complain bitterly that the 'underworld is disgracing the revolution'. Beevor goes on to suggest this may have been the result of the anarchist's willingness to accept anyone into the militias if they had a genuine story out of trust and desperation for soldiers to fight the fascists. He says:


Falangists sought refuge in the ranks....Many on the left also alleged that civil guards were often the most flagrant killers

Falangists were those supportive of Franco, fascists, and the Civil Guard were the Spanish police unit most hated for their brutality and crimes.

Perhaps the most false and insulting lie spread by bitter nationalists, ranging from fascists through to the members of today who wish to besmirch a true revolution, was that there was widespread raping of nuns by anarchists. This is clearly not true, as shown by the anti-authoritarian nature of the revolution, the fact that anarcha-feminists were prominent, brothels were closed and women were in the militias and participated as equals to men, and the fact that no true anarchist would ever infringe upon someones liberty is such a perverse way. Logic dictates this, but so does historical fact and research:


The most sensational item of propoganda in the world press involved the raping of nuns, yet th detailed nationalist indictment of republican crimes published in 1946 offers no evidence for any such incident, while hinting at only one.

I think this speaks for itself.

On the priests, as I have already mentioned, the violence was exagerrated and often made up and was not without reason, nor was it ever sanctioned or popularly supported, as I have always maintained. The clergy were seen as no better than the fascists or capitalists, and as Beevor puts it:


But the vengeance was not as indiscriminate and blind as has sometimes been claimed.

Certainly people were killed. But innocent people? Intentionally? Certainly not. There is no evidence for this. The revolutionaries had no time or interest in the fascist act of simplying walking into towns and killing, raping and burning at will. Why? Because they were anarchists. What sort of anarchist would kill innocent proletarians? What sort of anarchist would rape? What sort of anarchist would spend time out of a social revolution and anti-fascist war doing these things? Clearly, no anarchist would do any of these things and history supports this. The claims were pure slander, spread by the fascists and capitalists and sadly picked up on by comrades who are fearful of true workers control and lbiertarian communism and so wish to besmirch and dismiss it with lies about brutality and disorganisation.

I'm going to continue writings things on the Spanish Civil War that are unclear as I discover more. I'm going to do a piece on the fascist atrocities to put the whole war and fighting into context, and deal with the revolution itself in greater detail, because quite simply, some members of this board have no grasp of the events of Spain in 1936-1939 at all.

***Link to source***

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Battle-Spain-Spanish-Civil-1936-1939/dp/0297848321

I doubt you can find it online but here is the book if you want to look yourself or buy it. Its a very good read for anti-fascists and revolutionaries. If you live in London, get it from Freedom Press! The money goes to the upkeep and its an anarchist bookstore run by anarchists.

[Andropov]

Contrast this to official IRA policy of bombing city centres.
Bombing commercial targets with telephone warnings?


Certainly people were killed. But innocent people? Intentionally? Certainly not. There is no evidence for this.

Now give me a link to where the IRA killed innocent people intentionally?

[Pogue]

Bombing commercial targets with telephone warnings?

What, so you don't think it was there intention that it would kill loads of people and spread terror, even though it did a number of times?


Now give me a link to where the IRA killed innocent people intentionally?

They bombed pubs. Did they not think that if they bombed a pub, there was quite a large chance that maybe someone who was not a direct perpertrator of British Imperialism might be killed?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1201738.stm

I'd rather this thread didn't descend into your denial of IRA actions. What I'd reccomend is that you start a thread using historical sources disproving the IRA ever intentionally killed a civilian, so we can have the relevant debate there. This is mainly about the Spanish Anarchists here, not the IRA, I merely wanted to show how they were not similar, so don't go off topic.

[Andropov]

What, so you don't think it was there intention that it would kill loads of people and spread terror, even though it did a number of times?
No of course not, thats outrageous.

They bombed pubs. Did they not think that if they bombed a pub, there was quite a large chance that maybe someone who was not a direct perpertrator of British Imperialism might be killed?
I dont agree with the pub bombings.
But those innocent people were not targeted intentionally, it would be collateral damage.
Just as in the Spanish Civil War the Anarchists also had collateral damage.

I'd rather this thread didn't descend into your denial of IRA actions.
Firstly you were the one who mentioned the IRA in this thread.
Secondly I am not denying any actions, im rubbishing the LIES you spread and the chauvanistic bile you vomit.

What I'd reccomend is that you start a thread using historical sources disproving the IRA ever intentionally killed a civilian, so we can have the relevant debate there.
It is your responsibility to prove their intentions since you were claiming they intended to murder innocent civilians.
It is not my responsibility to prove anything, the responsibility is with you to prove your claims.

This is mainly about the Spanish Anarchists here, not the IRA,
I guess you shouldnt have mentioned the IRA in your thread then.

I merely wanted to show how they were not similar, so don't go off topic.
Im on topic, im addressing some of your outrageous and unsubstantiated claims.

[Pogue]

Im on topic, im addressing some of your outrageous and unsubstantiated claims.


I hardly think you can bomb a pub, a place where people go to drink, and then say that it was 'collateral damage' that some civilians got killed. When you bomb a pub, I think its pretty obvious you know civilians are going to be killed and clearly don't care.

I don't see how opposing the bombing of pubs in which innocent people died in the name of 'national liberation' is 'chauvinistic bile', in fact I'd say its quite the opposite.

[Pogue]

Just as in the Spanish Civil War the Anarchists also had collateral damage.


What particular case are you referring to here?

[PRC-UTE]

Certain members of this board have said on a number of occasions in the past that the Spanish anarchists were no better than the IRA in that both killed innocent civilians. I knew this not to be true from my studies of the war, but I hadn't actually found any statistics. But I was compelled too by the fact the claim has been used against me in debates a number of times and as a general stain on anarchists so I did a bit of additional research and found this. Everything I quote is an extract from Anthony Beevor's much acclaimed book 'The Battle For Spain' (I'm sure you've heard of it, but it can be found on Amazon and if you're a Londoner, in Freedom Press in Whitechapel, the better place to buy it from). Its fantastic.

This has not been the first time his work's been cited on this forum. I've cited it several times in debates with you on anarchist violence.

Beevor also mentions that some leading libertarian militants had to be executed to prevent lawless revenge killings that many anarchists were involved in. See his chapter 'The Red Terror' where he mentions many vigilante acts of violence, and not just against clergy.

See the chapter "The Republican Zone". According to Beevor "Justice became the responsibility of revolutionary tribunals, whose proceedings were allowed to have legal assistance and to call witnesses, although standards varied widely and in some places justice remained a grotesque piece of play-acting."

He also describes the failures and lack of discipline that caused enormous problems, saying that one would be a regarded as a fool if they stayed awake during a night of sentry duty! He also describes volunteers taking leave without notice. Now, if there's that much indiscipline, why should we feign shock that some unsanctioned violence took place? Really, it is startling to me how unwilling anarchists are to question their dogmas like electing military officers, even though clearly this doesn't get the job done when going up against enemy forces with more discipline.

from the chapter 'The Army of Africa and the People's Militias': 'Some genuine supporters of the Republic were probably shot in error and certainly in several cases loyal regular army officers for made scapegoats for militia reverses.'

An interesting bit about violence directed against peasants fro the chapter 'The Republican Zone': 'In Aragon some collectives were installed forcibly by anarchist militia... [that] sometimes led to violence.'

Anyway, you're missing the point. Civilians deaths are inevitable in war. We're not condemning them at all- we're pointing out that it's a reality of revolution/civil war that violence will claim innocent civilians. Beevor agrees, saying 'With the intense atmosphere of suspicion and the speed of events, many mistakes were undoubtedly made.'



Contrast this to official IRA policy of bombing city centres.


...and phoning in warnings. The majority of their attacks were never aimed at killing civilians. this is widely recognised.

So we're back to where we started: you have one standard for anarchists and another for the Irish when they are fighting your own ruling class.

more fundamentally, I wish you would help us build the mass political will necessary to liberate Ireland. if there was more support for Irish anti-imperialism in Britain, there would be a decreased chance of violence, especially protracted conflict. British public opinion helped end the Tan War for example.

[Andropov]

I hardly think you can bomb a pub, a place where people go to drink, and then say that it was 'collateral damage' that some civilians got killed. When you bomb a pub, I think its pretty obvious you know civilians are going to be killed and clearly don't care.
These were pubs where known squaddies drank.

I don't see how opposing the bombing of pubs in which innocent people died in the name of 'national liberation' is 'chauvinistic bile', in fact I'd say its quite the opposite.
Your chauvanistic bile is in referance to your over all attitude to the National Liberation of Ireland.

[Andropov]

What particular case are you referring to here?
So no civlians died in collateral damage due to Anarchist attacks in the Spanish Civil War?

[Pogue]

So no civlians died in collateral damage due to Anarchist attacks in the Spanish Civil War?

I refered to specific IRA attacks on civilian locations that killed civilians so you could deal with them. How am I meant to respond to 'collateral damage due to Anarchist attacks' if you haven't given me any specific examples I can deal with?

[thejambo1]

in a war situation innocent people will undoubtably die,its a sad fact. civilians died during the spanish civil war and died in ireland and england. it wont change and has happened in all conflicts from as far back as we can trace.

[Andropov]

I refered to specific IRA attacks on civilian locations that killed civilians so you could deal with them. How am I meant to respond to 'collateral damage due to Anarchist attacks' if you haven't given me any specific examples I can deal with?
I dont know of any set incidents, I dont know the Spanish Civil War in detail.
But it was a war and in a war sometimes circumstances arise where civilians will become collateral damage, unfortunately its a reality of war.
I dont blame the Anarchists for it, I know they didnt target civilians intentionally, just as I know that the IRA didnt target civilians intentionally.

[Pogue]

I dont know of any set incidents, I dont know the Spanish Civil War in detail.
But it was a war and in a war sometimes circumstances arise where civilians will become collateral damage, unfortunately its a reality of war.
I dont blame the Anarchists for it, I know they didnt target civilians intentionally, just as I know that the IRA didnt target civilians intentionally.

So you don't have any evidence of this, you just assumed, wheras I have evidence the IRA bombed civilians targets, nice.

[Devrim]

Now give me a link to where the IRA killed innocent people intentionally?

Kingsmill? Bloody Friday? Enniskillen? Warrington?...

Devrim

[Andropov]

So you don't have any evidence of this, you just assumed, wheras I have evidence the IRA bombed civilians targets, nice.
HLVS it was a war!
Are you so divorced from reality that you cannot at least concede that collateral damage happens in war?
The only reason I ever brough up anarchist killings in the Spanish Civil War was to try and open your eyes to the fact that in a war unforseen and undesireable circumstances arise that you have no control over.
Its a fact of life.

[Forward Union]

I dont know of any set incidents, I dont know the Spanish Civil War in detail.
But it was a war and in a war sometimes circumstances arise where civilians will become collateral damage, unfortunately its a reality of war.
I dont blame the Anarchists for it, I know they didnt target civilians intentionally, just as I know that the IRA didnt target civilians intentionally.

I think the key issue is that the CNT were aiming at setting up a workers democracy and the IRA were looking at setting up a Nationalist Republic with Catholic-Theocratic leanings that would have clamped down on things like abortion rights and protestantism. The IRA was involved in sectarian killings of other Irish workers who were not Catholics...

Of course I support the removal of British forces from Ireland, and recognize that many of the aims of the IRA were legitimate, whereas none of the Imperialists' aims were.

But they're not a revolutionary movement, nor are they involved in a total war such as the CNT was. They were involved in a low intensity war, and picked their targets rather casually.

[Pogue]

HLVS it was a war!
Are you so divorced from reality that you cannot at least concede that collateral damage happens in war?
The only reason I ever brough up anarchist killings in the Spanish Civil War was to try and open your eyes to the fact that in a war unforseen and undesireable circumstances arise that you have no control over.
Its a fact of life.

But as I said, you just assumed there was a hypothetical situation when an anarchist militiaman shot at a fascist or threw a grenade and an innocent civilian died, but you didn't provide evidence of this.

I have linked you to a list of attacks carried out by the IRA which attacked civilian targets. As I said, if you bomb a pub, you are fully aware there will be some civilians in there too. Its not the same as shooting with good intentions and without your knowledge and against your will, hitting a civilian who suddenly appears.

[Forward Union]

Are you so divorced from reality that you cannot at least concede that collateral damage happens in war?
The only reason I ever brough up anarchist killings in the Spanish Civil War was to try and open your eyes to the fact that in a war unforseen and undesireable circumstances arise that you have no control over.There is clearly a difference between collateral damage in a full scale civil war, and bombing Protestant funerals to kill as many protestants as possible.

[h0m0revolutionary]

But Red, your whole premise is that the IRA didn't target individuals but sought to cause collateral damage, as if that itself is legitimate?

Now im left-wing, which means I don't march alongside the IRA, but if i were a nationalist like you are :laugh:.. I'd be very wary of defending a group that targets pubs, Warrington city centre etc - it's clear that such places aren't hotspots for the rich and powerful.

In fact the only logical consequence of attacking such places is the death of innocent bystanders. Collateral damage, even if the primary objective, is not a valid excuse to apologise for the IRA. Even in a revolutionary period the thought of bombing working class town centres and blowing up pubs is completely counter-prodictive, we're not violence fetishists, we're left wing because we realise the creative potential of human beings.

I don't see how we further our causes by bombing workers.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Great post H-L-V-S. To be perfectly honest, I am personally not emotionally moved at all about the shootings of the clergy. When I saw it in Libertarias I wasn't either. What is everyone elses opinion on this.

Don't agree that the CNT would hang members who disobeyed their orders though.

[Blackscare]

HLVS it was a war!
Are you so divorced from reality that you cannot at least concede that collateral damage happens in war?
The only reason I ever brough up anarchist killings in the Spanish Civil War was to try and open your eyes to the fact that in a war unforseen and undesireable circumstances arise that you have no control over.
Its a fact of life.


But since you haven't given any details of anarchist activity in question, we can't compare the reasons behind "collateral" casualties.


For one, there's a huge difference between a mortar landing on a farmhouse accidentally (hypothetical) and killing civilians, and bombing a pub where it's almost certain innocents will be.


One is genuine accidental/collateral damage that would happen in war time, the other is murder.

[Andropov]

Kingsmill?
Unsanctioned sectarian slaughter carried out by rogue elements.

Bloody Friday?
Where did the provos target civilians here Devrim?
It was economic targets.

Warnings were given by the IRA via the local media to the security forces before the bombs exploded with 30 minutes' warning given for the first bombing and around 70 minutes' warning for the last bomb.

Enniskillen?
An unsanctioned bombing that was never intended to target civilians.

[PRC-UTE]

There is clearly a difference between collateral damage in a full scale civil war, and bombing Protestant funerals to kill as many protestants as possible.

You've got it the other way around. Loyalists attacked republican funerals with grenades.

The Kingsmill massacre was one of the few attacks that was directed at Protestant civilians- and many IRA members were completely ashamed of it, the leadership also was furious when they found out.

The IRA never had a policy of 'kill[ing] as many protestants as possible'. The republican armies together killed over 800 British military personnel. Had their goal been to murder random Protestant civilians there woudl have been a huge number of Protestant civilians killed- thousands instead of the 500 or so protestant civilian victims (and of course not all of those 500-something victims were killed by republicans, quite a few were done by Loyalists).

Even attacks which I disagree with like the shankill bombing were targetting a loyalist UDA meeting. Which again i disagree with, but the aim was the largest and most anti-catholic paramilitary froce at the time

[Blackscare]

An unsanctioned bombing

Unsanctioned sectarian slaughter

So it's evidence of anarchist disorder when "rogue elements" go out and kill people of their own accord, but with the IRA the same behavior is excusable and doesn't reflect badly on the IRA as a whole? Double standard much?

[Andropov]

I think the key issue is that the CNT were aiming at setting up a workers democracy and the IRA were looking at setting up a Nationalist Republic with Catholic-Theocratic leanings that would have clamped down on things like abortion rights and protestantism. The IRA was involved in sectarian killings of other Irish workers who were not Catholics...
I agree with alot of the above bar that the IRA ever intentionally set about to attack Protestants.

Of course I support the removal of British forces from Ireland, and recognize that many of the aims of the IRA were legitimate, whereas none of the Imperialists' aims were.
I agree with all of the above too.

But they're not a revolutionary movement, nor are they involved in a total war such as the CNT was. They were involved in a low intensity war, and picked their targets rather casually.
Depends what you term as Revolutionary and how you analyse the IRA.
Granted the leadership was Bourgoisie and reformist.
But many of the rank and file thoroughly believed they were fighting for a Workers Republic.
But it is because of this realisation that I had nothing to do with PSF.

[Andropov]

So it's evidence of anarchist disorder when "rogue elements" go out and kill people of their own accord, but with the IRA the same behavior is excusable and doesn't reflect badly on the IRA as a whole? Double standard much?
What?
I never said this.
I made the comparison with Anarchists to show HLVS's hypocricy when he berated Republicans.
You can see from this that I realise the context of the Spanish Civil War and the IRA's war.

[PRC-UTE]

So it's evidence of anarchist disorder when "rogue elements" go out and kill people of their own accord, but with the IRA the same behavior is excusable and doesn't reflect badly on the IRA as a whole? Double standard much?

It's not a double standard. We admit that both republicans and anarchists made errors in arms. That's our point.

[Andropov]

But as I said, you just assumed there was a hypothetical situation when an anarchist militiaman shot at a fascist or threw a grenade and an innocent civilian died, but you didn't provide evidence of this.
HLVS are you denying that their was civilian collateral damage on the Anarchist side?

I have linked you to a list of attacks carried out by the IRA which attacked civilian targets. As I said, if you bomb a pub, you are fully aware there will be some civilians in there too. Its not the same as shooting with good intentions and without your knowledge and against your will, hitting a civilian who suddenly appears.
Yes the bomb can be an indescriminate weapon.
Did anarchists never use bombs?

[Andropov]

There is clearly a difference between collateral damage in a full scale civil war, and bombing Protestant funerals to kill as many protestants as possible.
Where did the IRA sanction the bombing of Protestant funerals?

[Blackscare]

It's not a double standard. We admit that both republicans and anarchists made errors in arms. That's our point.


Well like I pointed out earlier, the Spanish anarchists may have killed civilians because of the genuine unintentional consequences of warfare, whereas the IRA knowingly targeted places civilians were going to be.


Anarchists actually made combat errors (in the context we're talking about; the Spanish civil war), like any other military force that's ever existed. What some IRA members did was murder.

[Andropov]

But Red, your whole premise is that the IRA didn't target individuals but sought to cause collateral damage, as if that itself is legitimate?
I dont believe they sought collateral damage.
Lets make it clear, when they bombed city centres they were targeting commercial institutions and when they were bombing pubs in Britain they were targeting Squadies.

Now im left-wing, which means I don't march alongside the IRA, but if i were a nationalist like you are :laugh:..
I dont march beside the IRA, indeed the RSM were targeted by the provos on numerous occasions and I am not nationalist, supporting National Liberation is not supporting Nationalism.

I'd be very wary of defending a group that targets pubs, Warrington city centre etc - it's clear that such places aren't hotspots for the rich and powerful.
When people attempt to distort history like HLVS is doing and stating that the provos were targeting civilians on purpose I will of course intervene.
Not because I have an affiliation to the provos but because HLVS is distorting reality.

In fact the only logical consequence of attacking such places is the death of innocent bystanders.
Why then the phone warnings before bombings?

Collateral damage, even if the primary objective, is not a valid excuse to apologise for the IRA.
Im not apologising just correcting revisionist history from HLVS.

Even in a revolutionary period the thought of bombing working class town centres and blowing up pubs is completely counter-prodictive, we're not violence fetishists, we're left wing because we realise the creative potential of human beings.
Ive stated before that phone warnings were given ahead of bombing commercial targets.
And pub bombings were targeting squadies.

I don't see how we further our causes by bombing workers.
Did I say it did?

[Andropov]

For one, there's a huge difference between a mortar landing on a farmhouse accidentally (hypothetical) and killing civilians, and bombing a pub where it's almost certain innocents will be.
What, civilians arent known to reside in a farmhouse?

[Andropov]

Well like I pointed out earlier, the Spanish anarchists may have killed civilians because of the genuine unintentional consequences of warfare, whereas the IRA knowingly targeted places civilians were going to be.
And if there was a disproportionit risk to civilians then a warning was provided.

Anarchists actually made combat errors (in the context we're talking about; the Spanish civil war), like any other military force that's ever existed. What some IRA members did was murder.
Bullshit!
So isolated incidents conducted by CNT members could not be construed as murder and tarnish the whole movement?

[PRC-UTE]

What some IRA members did was murder.

Of course. But you could say the exact same about anarchists- the libertarian leadership had to put a stop to revenge killings.

See my first post on the previous page. I cite the same source as HLVS to show that some anarchists definitely killed unarmed civilians.

[Pogue]

See my first post on the previous page. I cite the same source as HLVS to show that some anarchists definitely killed unarmed civilians.


No, it didn't actually say that.

[PRC-UTE]

No, it didn't actually say that.

Sure it does:


This has not been the first time his work's been cited on this forum. I've cited it several times in debates with you on anarchist violence.

Beevor also mentions that some leading libertarian militants had to be executed to prevent lawless revenge killings that many anarchists were involved in. See his chapter 'The Red Terror' where he mentions many vigilante acts of violence, and not just against clergy.

See the chapter "The Republican Zone". According to Beevor "Justice became the responsibility of revolutionary tribunals, whose proceedings were allowed to have legal assistance and to call witnesses, although standards varied widely and in some places justice remained a grotesque piece of play-acting."

He also describes the failures and lack of discipline that caused enormous problems, saying that one would be a regarded as a fool if they stayed awake during a night of sentry duty! He also describes volunteers taking leave without notice. Now, if there's that much indiscipline, why should we feign shock that some unsanctioned violence took place? Really, it is startling to me how unwilling anarchists are to question their dogmas like electing military officers, even though clearly this doesn't get the job done when going up against enemy forces with more discipline.

from the chapter 'The Army of Africa and the People's Militias': 'Some genuine supporters of the Republic were probably shot in error and certainly in several cases loyal regular army officers for made scapegoats for militia reverses.'

An interesting bit about violence directed against peasants fro the chapter 'The Republican Zone': 'In Aragon some collectives were installed forcibly by anarchist militia... [that] sometimes led to violence.'

Anyway, you're missing the point. Civilians deaths are inevitable in war. We're not condemning them at all- we're pointing out that it's a reality of revolution/civil war that violence will claim innocent civilians. Beevor agrees, saying 'With the intense atmosphere of suspicion and the speed of events, many mistakes were undoubtedly made.'

[Devrim]

Unsanctioned sectarian slaughter carried out by rogue elements.

An unsanctioned bombing that was never intended to target civilians.

I presume that if the British army came out with something like 'the Bloody Sunday murders weren't our fault' and tried to claim that they were carried out by 'rogue elements' 'unsanctioned' in a sort of 'you can't blame the British state it was the squaddies on the ground that just lost their heads', you would treat it with the same derision with which I consider your statements here.


Where did the provos target civilians here Devrim?
It was economic targets.Are we really supposed to believe that they thought they could explode 22 bombs in around 40 minutes in the centre of a crowded city without murdering civilians?

Devrim

[Andropov]

I presume that if the British army came out with something like the Bloody Sunday murders weren't our fault and tried to claim that they were carried out by 'rogue elements' 'unsanctioned' in a sort of you can't blame the British state it was the squaddies on the ground that just lost their heads, you would treat it with the same derision with which I consider your statements here.
No, I say that such actions by the British Army are sympomatic of an occupation.

Are we really supposed to believe that they thought they could explode 22 bombs in around 40 minutes in the centre of a crowded city without murdering civilians?
Devrim I really dont care what you believe.
The provos gave at least half an hour warning for the bombings, they were not targeting civilians.
They were targeting commercial targets.

[communard resolution]

The Vatican openly supported the fascists and tried to encourage others to do so

Yes, there is little doubt about that. The Vatican also supported fascist movements in other countries, such as the Catholic-fascist Ustashe state/Nazi puppet regime in Croatia.

[Blackscare]

What, civilians arent known to reside in a farmhouse?


They are, but this hypothetical farmhouse wasn't even intentionally targeted. Remember how I said a stray mortar or something to that effect?


The point is, in actual war civilians get caught in the crossfire, this is different from intentionally being targeted.


IRA members targeted pubs, that's different from unintentionally hitting a civilian target.

[Devrim]

No, I say that such actions by the British Army are sympomatic of an occupation.

Yes, pretty much as sectarian murders of workers such as the one at Kingsmill, and 'collateral damage' during bombs such as in Belfast on bloody Friday are symptomatic of national liberation gangs.



The provos gave at least half an hour warning for the bombings, they were not targeting civilians.
They were targeting commercial targets.

Yes, they gave warnings for some bombs, warnings for some bombs that weren't there, and warnings for other that weren't, a policy designed to cause panic, confusion and ultimately civilian casualties.

Are those in command in the British army cynical enough to ignore bomb warnings or act upon them late in order to cause civilian casualties, quite probably. Certainly the IRA believed it.

But what did they expect of the British army, to play the game like gentlemen?

Both sides bear complicity in the murdering of civilians in Northern Ireland.

Devrim

[brigadista]

it would be very good to hear some spanish comrades view on HVLS post and the following debate on here

[Cumannach]

Both sides bear complicity in the murdering of civilians in Northern Ireland.

Devrim

No, only one side was occupying someone else's country.

The shit you come out with is amazing.

[Pogue]

Beevor also mentions that some leading libertarian militants had to be executed to prevent lawless revenge killings that many anarchists were involved in. See his chapter 'The Red Terror' where he mentions many vigilante acts of violence, and not just against clergy.


I spoke about this. And he said that the CNT-FAI executed some members who carried out personal acts of vigilante justice.

I don't see what way you're looking at this. Either your trying to say the CNT-FAI as a whole supported these actions, which is clearly untrue given their response, or that the guys who carried out the acts were examples of brutal anarchists killing random people. If you actually read the Red Terror section you'd see that the anarchists killed a UGT member who blocked CNT members from gaining work, as well as a police spy, as opposed to random civilians they randomly wanted to kill. The CNT responded by executing them for this because they didn't want chaos, they wanted anarchy, and they had a complex ideology focused on personal responsibility, opposition to prisons and plus it was during a wwar/revolution.

Theres no evidence the CNT planting a bomb in a city centre or pub and not giving a shit about civilian casualties, nor is there any examples of the CNT randomly deciding to go massacre some civilians. The CNT killed people yes, but the didn't go on random massacres of innocents.

[Andropov]

Yes, pretty much as sectarian murders of workers such as the one at Kingsmill, and 'collateral damage' during bombs such as in Belfast on bloody Friday are symptomatic of national liberation gangs.
They are no more sympotmatic than the murders and accidents that occured in the Spanish Civil War Devrim.

Yes, they gave warnings for some bombs, warnings for some bombs that weren't there, and warnings for other that weren't, a policy designed to cause panic, confusion and ultimately civilian casualties.
Are those in command in the British army cynical enough to ignore bomb warnings or act upon them late in order to cause civilian casualties, quite probably. Certainly the IRA believed it.
But what did they expect of the British army, to play the game like gentlemen?
Devrim here is what Brendan "The Dark" Hughes said on the economic bombing campaign, this is coming straight from the horses mouth so to speak so as to clarify the IRA's policy on the bombing campaign.

One of the tactics used was the commercial bombs, to try and tie up the city centre, to bring more troops into the city centre and if the IRA were putting bombs into the city centre, one they were hitting the economic and the commercial interests of the people who were ruling over us, they were also drawing troops out of the ghetto areas into the city centre to protect those economic interests because that is the main reason that they are here to protect the interests of the capitalist class, the ruling class. Occasionaly and sometimes it did happen where bombs were put down into the city centre and civilians were killed. Over a period of years the British manipulated that situation and on one particular occasion alone that I know of they did not pass warnings on. They say they couldnt handle it because there were so many bombs in the town, I dont believe that because if they can walk into a place like Ballymurphy completely seal it off and search every house in it and they try to tell us that they couldnt empty the city centre. Also it became obvious that they were using the situation of the economic bomb in the city centre to turn people against the movement, to turn people against the IRA and the last people the IRA wanted to hurt or injure or kill during the economic bombing campaign in the town were civilians

[Andropov]

They are, but this hypothetical farmhouse wasn't even intentionally targeted. Remember how I said a stray mortar or something to that effect?
But fireing mortars in an area populated by civilians can be argued as plain neglect also?

The point is, in actual war civilians get caught in the crossfire, this is different from intentionally being targeted.
As was pointed out before the IRA never intentionally targeted civilians.

IRA members targeted pubs, that's different from unintentionally hitting a civilian target.
But fireing mortars or shelling areas where civilians reside also shows blatant disregaurd.
Its all much of a muchness if you ask me.

[Blackscare]

The Spanish civil war was fought trench style, it's obvious that civilian homes were bound to be caught along the battle lines somewhere along the line. Hardly an instance of blatant disregard on the part of the anarchists (rather it was an unavoidable consequence).

Targeting a pub where known squadies were known to drink is much worse, because obviously a pub will include people who are not affiliated with your enemies. When you target a place knowing that non-combatants are going to be there, when that target has no real strategic importance no less, that to me is tantamount to targeting civilians intentionally.

[PRC-UTE]

I spoke about this. And he said that the CNT-FAI executed some members who carried out personal acts of vigilante justice.

I don't see what way you're looking at this. Either your trying to say the CNT-FAI as a whole supported these actions, which is clearly untrue given their response, or that the guys who carried out the acts were examples of brutal anarchists killing random people. If you actually read the Red Terror section you'd see that the anarchists killed a UGT member who blocked CNT members from gaining work, as well as a police spy, as opposed to random civilians they randomly wanted to kill. The CNT responded by executing them for this because they didn't want chaos, they wanted anarchy, and they had a complex ideology focused on personal responsibility, opposition to prisons and plus it was during a wwar/revolution.

Theres no evidence the CNT planting a bomb in a city centre or pub and not giving a shit about civilian casualties, nor is there any examples of the CNT randomly deciding to go massacre some civilians. The CNT killed people yes, but the didn't go on random massacres of innocents.

I'm not saying the CNT supported murdering civilians, I'm saying that they made mistakes and got the wrong people, the same as republicans. I'm not attacking the CNT-FAI: aside from not taking power I agree with quite a bit of what they did, including terrorising clergy who were pro-fascist.

You're just fetishing the issue of what kind of arms were used and how. A libertarian pistolero kills someone the same as an IRA operator planting a bomb.

[PRC-UTE]

The Spanish civil war was fought trench style, it's obvious that civilian homes were bound to be caught along the battle lines somewhere along the line. Hardly an instance of blatant disregard on the part of the anarchists (rather it was an unavoidable consequence).

Targeting a pub where known squadies were known to drink is much worse, because obviously a pub will include people who are not affiliated with your enemies. When you target a place knowing that non-combatants are going to be there, when that target has no real strategic importance no less, that to me is tantamount to targeting civilians intentionally.

but we could then turn around and say that comparatively the bomb attacks care relatively few civilians

[Andropov]

The Spanish civil war was fought trench style, it's obvious that civilian homes were bound to be caught along the battle lines somewhere along the line. Hardly an instance of blatant disregard on the part of the anarchists (rather it was an unavoidable consequence).
And the war which was waged in the streets of Northern Ireland was primarily urban guerilla warfare in Belfast and Derry.

Targeting a pub where known squadies were known to drink is much worse, because obviously a pub will include people who are not affiliated with your enemies.
As that can happen with a mortar, or a shell or a bomb dropped from a plane.

when that target has no real strategic importance no les
The sad reality is that every dead squadie was of strategic importance and all the greater when on British soil.
Paddys or soldiers killed on Irish soil just didnt hold the same political currency as squadies killed on British soil.

[Blackscare]

but we could then turn around and say that comparatively the bomb attacks care relatively few civilians



As that can happen with a mortar, or a shell or a bomb dropped from a plane.


It's a question of intention though. It's one thing to accidentally kill civilians and an entirely different thing to intentionally target places you know they will be.

[Andropov]

It's a question of intention though.
Absolutely, the provos intentions were clear.
To kill squadies.

t's one thing to accidentally kill civilians and an entirely different thing to intentionally target places you know they will be.
But bombs were dropped in the course of the Civil War in urban areas where they knew civilians would be but in the context of the situation it was a calculated risk and the collateral damage would be understandable.

[Devrim]

No, only one side was occupying someone else's country.

It is a very bourgeois way off looking at it though. Revolutionaries believe that the working class has no country.

Devrim

[Devrim]

They are no more sympotmatic than the murders and accidents that occured in the Spanish Civil War Devrim.

Well I hadn't made any comparisons at all with the events in Spain. I think that there is a crucial difference though, and that is the class basis on the violence.

It is not that I am a pacifist. It is not that I even think that there won't be accidents or even individuals opportunistically using revolutionary upsurges to settle personal scores.

The difference is the class nature of the actions. There is a difference between a mass workers uprising such as the one in Spain in 1936, and stopping buses, getting of workers who come from a different religious background and murdering them.

There is a difference between the violence of the class as a whole, and that of armed nationalist gangs.

Devrim

[Devrim]

One of the tactics used was the commercial bombs, to try and tie up the city centre, to bring more troops into the city centre and if the IRA were putting bombs into the city centre, one they were hitting the economic and the commercial interests of the people who were ruling over us, they were also drawing troops out of the ghetto areas into the city centre to protect those economic interests because that is the main reason that they are here to protect the interests of the capitalist class, the ruling class. Occasionaly and sometimes it did happen where bombs were put down into the city centre and civilians were killed. Over a period of years the British manipulated that situation and on one particular occasion alone that I know of they did not pass warnings on. They say they couldnt handle it because there were so many bombs in the town, I dont believe that because if they can walk into a place like Ballymurphy completely seal it off and search every house in it and they try to tell us that they couldnt empty the city centre. Also it became obvious that they were using the situation of the economic bomb in the city centre to turn people against the movement, to turn people against the IRA and the last people the IRA wanted to hurt or injure or kill during the economic bombing campaign in the town were civilians

I am not really impressed by nationalist justifying their murder campaigns, particularly when it is done is quasi-Marxist language.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Great post H-L-V-S. To be perfectly honest, I am personally not emotionally moved at all about the shootings of the clergy. When I saw it in Libertarias I wasn't either. What is everyone elses opinion on this.

Don't agree that the CNT would hang members who disobeyed their orders though.

I have no problem with the execution of Fascists in a fucking civil war.

They didnt kill people who disobeyed, they killed deserters. As did Makhno.

[Andropov]

The difference is the class nature of the actions. There is a difference between a mass workers uprising such as the one in Spain in 1936, and stopping buses, getting of workers who come from a different religious background and murdering them.
Where have I supported such actions as what happened in Kingsmill Devrim show me where, or even where I supported or condoned it?
Such insinuation was a cheap shot Devrim, one I didnt really expect off you.

There is a difference between the violence of the class as a whole, and that of armed nationalist gangs.

Firstly define how Republican Armys are gangs?
Secondly lets not forget that these "gangs" had massive public support.
They would not have been able to function in these working class areas without their support.
And lets not forget that it was Republicans who mustered 100,000 working class people on the streets of Belfast, not the ICC.

[Andropov]

I am not really impressed by nationalist justifying their murder campaigns, particularly when it is done is quasi-Marxist language.
I really dont care what you are impressed by.

[Cumannach]

It is a very bourgeois way off looking at it though. Revolutionaries believe that the working class has no country.

Devrim

"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word."

A few years later Marx perhaps forgot that 'Irish' and 'English' workers don't actually exist since workers have no country;

"...What the Irish need is:

1. Self-government and independence from England..."

But then, what am I saying, none of that matters, since Marx was no revolutionary, as he actually lived and acted in the real world.

[Andropov]

But then, what am I saying, none of that matters, since Marx was no revolutionary, as he actually lived and acted in the real world.
Spot on.

[pastradamus]

Certain members of this board have said on a number of occasions in the past that the Spanish anarchists were no better than the IRA in that both killed innocent civilians. I knew this not to be true from my studies of the war, but I hadn't actually found any statistics. But I was compelled too by the fact the claim has been used against me in debates a number of times and as a general stain on anarchists so I did a bit of additional research and found this. Everything I quote is an extract from Anthony Beevor's much acclaimed book 'The Battle For Spain' (I'm sure you've heard of it, but it can be found on Amazon and if you're a Londoner, in Freedom Press in Whitechapel, the better place to buy it from). Its fantastic.

"The battle for Spain" is one of the best books I have ever read. You made a good suggestion to members here by pointing it out. To compare the CNT-FAI to the IRA is a flawed suggestion from the start. Firstly in the way we are'nt pointed out as to which IRA is compared? The Old IRA of the 1920's? The Old IRA of the 1916 rising? the Official IRA? The Real IRA? The Provisional IRA? The Continuity IRA? It is also completely absurd to suggest that the CNT-FAI were murdering civilians as they(the members) were civilians with an arsenal of class consciousness. When it comes to their Tactical manoeuvrings I suggest one read my blog on the subject.


I think the most important thing to remember when dealing with the treatment of members of the clergy in this period was the role they had in Spain at the time. Contrary to what the fascists said and the hysterical capitalist press repeated, the clergy were by no means innocent. The Vatican openly supported the fascists and tried to encourage others to do so, and for years, the clergy had been the symbol of privilige and heirachy, enjoying great deals of wealth in a country full of poverty. It iwas well documented how Catholic priests in Spain often physically fought for the fascists, and betrayed their people by passing on information to the fascists. And of course, Franco himself was deeply Catholic and one of his justifications for his brutal uprising was that he had to defend Catholicism in Spain.

Right on.



As is seen, the violence was not random. Nor was it sanctioned. There is evidence of the FAI dealing harshly with members who carried out attacks on people which were not sanctioned by the group and its democratic processes, contrary to what some members of this board (namely IRA apologists) have said. The following paragraph comes from a response to several anarchists killing someone a man who had blacklisted CNT members from work:

Yes, The CNT-FAI were very democratic and discussed all approaches before something was to be done. Which executed Individual are you referring to by the way?


Contrast this to official IRA policy of bombing city centres.

Sounds more like the PROVISIONAL IRA to me. Or are you referring to every branch of the IRA when you use the word 'official'? Even so I doubt the Provo's ever wanted to kill innocent people hence the purpose of the warning.


Falangists were those supportive of Franco, fascists, and the Civil Guard were the Spanish police unit most hated for their brutality and crimes. You left out the Carlists. :tt2:


Certainly people were killed. But innocent people? Intentionally? Certainly not. There is no evidence for this. The revolutionaries had no time or interest in the fascist act of simplying walking into towns and killing, raping and burning at will. Why? Because they were anarchists.

The IRA generally dont kill innocent people intentionally. This is a ridiculous argument if this is the argument you are making?


What sort of anarchist would kill innocent proletarians? What sort of anarchist would rape? What sort of anarchist would spend time out of a social revolution and anti-fascist war doing these things? Clearly, no anarchist would do any of these things and history supports this. The claims were pure slander, spread by the fascists and capitalists and sadly picked up on by comrades who are fearful of true workers control and lbiertarian communism and so wish to besmirch and dismiss it with lies about brutality and disorganisation.

I am extremely well-read on the Spanish civil war. I have a wealth of information on the subject and have met members of the International brigades and I cannot ever remember hearing such claims and reading anything of the like in a factual context. One of Franco's commanders Yague was a big propagandist and spread rumors during the war but were interpreted as obvious propaganda by the populance of republican spain.


I'm going to continue writings things on the Spanish Civil War that are unclear as I discover more. I'm going to do a piece on the fascist atrocities to put the whole war and fighting into context, and deal with the revolution itself in greater detail, because quite simply, some members of this board have no grasp of the events of Spain in 1936-1939 at all.

I think to write a piece which blasts the IRA and compares them to the CNT-FAI is a sound example of not having a grasp on events in Spain or anything of the like.



I doubt you can find it online but here is the book if you want to look yourself or buy it. Its a very good read for anti-fascists and revolutionaries. If you live in London, get it from Freedom Press! The money goes to the upkeep and its an anarchist bookstore run by anarchists.

I got mine off Connolly books in Dublin. The Communist parties bookshop and as I remember it they gave a fantastic discount.

[x359594]

Comrades, the expression "collateral damage" was a euphemism coined by the US Pentagon to cover the accidental but intentional murder of non-combatants. Let us not fall into the habit of using the oppressor's language to describe our own behavior.

That said, the revolutionary tribunal and the firing squad have been used in every modern revolution to suppress counter revolution. If the ends justifies the means for the party in power, then the blood flows like a river as in the Russian and Chinese Revolutions. If unity of ends and means is important to the victors, then the executions are kept to a minimum as in the Cuban Revolution (there were about 500 executions following trials by revolutionary tribunals.)

The tribunal and the firing squad are not at all like an artillery shell exploding in a residential neighborhood where the victims are random. The people brought before a firing squad have been identified as class enemies and subjected to at least a crude form of due process. The execution of clergy by some anarchist militants was deliberate, not an exigency of war. Let us have the courage to admit our own atrocities without resort to ex post facto rationalizations and hair splitting.

[pastradamus]

I think the key issue is that the CNT were aiming at setting up a workers democracy and the IRA were looking at setting up a Nationalist Republic with Catholic-Theocratic leanings that would have clamped down on things like abortion rights and protestantism. The IRA was involved in sectarian killings of other Irish workers who were not Catholics...

Completely Naive. Catholic-Theocratic leanings? Prove this to me. So the vast bulk of the IRA and Sinn Fein members happened to be Catholic? We are talking of people genuinely oppressed, Disenfranchised, excluded from government policies, murdered by police and loyalist mobs as well as being excluded from employment oppurtunities. Of course they are going to do something about it but Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein Manifesto never gave the Catholic church any special position nor even a mention in the state.
There is nothing to suggest anything about abortions and is a completely wafflesome argument.

Give me an example of Innocent Irish Protestant workers who were killed by the IRA for simply not being catholics?


But they're not a revolutionary movement, nor are they involved in a total war such as the CNT was. They were involved in a low intensity war, and picked their targets rather casually.

This is a big misconception of the CNT. The CNT-FAI were fighting a rather low-intensity war all along. That is until the large battles at the Ebro front which the CNT finally fought a full-scale and hard battle. Most early CNT battles were fought against low-scale Carlist forces on the Catalan front. The Thing that pulled the CNT-FAI apart was really In-fighting with the Popular Front. They would have been better prepared for the Fascist onslaught without this. I also must mention that many members here seem to compare the CNT-FAI's military capabilities with that of the Popular Front - A poor argument as the CNT-FAI did not as half as much battle success as that of the International Brigades. But it was a good solid and principled organisation and this is what stands for the CNT-FAI. It also presented an early Vanguard against the Fascists in 1936 & 1937 which was instrumental in the struggle and the training of new recruits for the popular front.

[pastradamus]

I spoke about this. And he said that the CNT-FAI executed some members who carried out personal acts of vigilante justice.

I don't see what way you're looking at this. Either your trying to say the CNT-FAI as a whole supported these actions, which is clearly untrue given their response, or that the guys who carried out the acts were examples of brutal anarchists killing random people. If you actually read the Red Terror section you'd see that the anarchists killed a UGT member who blocked CNT members from gaining work, as well as a police spy, as opposed to random civilians they randomly wanted to kill. The CNT responded by executing them for this because they didn't want chaos, they wanted anarchy, and they had a complex ideology focused on personal responsibility, opposition to prisons and plus it was during a wwar/revolution.

Theres no evidence the CNT planting a bomb in a city centre or pub and not giving a shit about civilian casualties, nor is there any examples of the CNT randomly deciding to go massacre some civilians. The CNT killed people yes, but the didn't go on random massacres of innocents.

I have two questions, statements in way of a questions actually.

Q: WHY DID THE CNT-FAI deal with people based on a personal man-on-man basis when it came to execution and justice?

A: Because they could. They de-facto ran Barcelona in the early period of the war. They were the biggest Union there and were also in control of the vital area's of the city. They made the rules and ran the majority socio-economic affairs. They created a new justice system as the CNT-FAI and the Popular front became the law.

Q:Why didnt the CNT-FAI bomb buildings?

A: Because they didnt need to. They de-facto ran Barcelona in the early period of the war. They were the biggest Union there and were also in control of the vital area's of the city. They made the rules and ran the majority socio-economic affairs. They created a new justice system as the CNT-FAI and the Popular front became the law.


Its childish simplicity really.


If the IRA controlled the North I could not envisage them blowing things up.

[pastradamus]

It is a very bourgeois way off looking at it though. Revolutionaries believe that the working class has no country.

Devrim
Interesting to point out that Marx had sympathies and even support for the Fenians who were bombing the living hell out of everything in the 1800's.

[Invader Zim]

While not wishing to get into this debate, I would suggest that reading Anthony Beevor on the Spanish Civil War is like reading Robert Conquest on Stalin. They both have their palce and something of worth to add to the debate, but that should be taken with more than just a pinch of salt.

[PRC-UTE]

While not wishing to get into this debate, I would suggest that reading Anthony Beevor on the Spanish Civil War is like reading Robert Conquest on Stalin. They both have their palce and something of worth to add to the debate, but that should be taken with more than just a pinch of salt.

you're right there. Beevor writes popular works and often plays into a lot of popular views and stereotypes, especially regarding his treatment of the Soviets.

[PRC-UTE]

I think the key issue is that the CNT were aiming at setting up a workers democracy and the IRA were looking at setting up a Nationalist Republic with Catholic-Theocratic leanings that would have clamped down on things like abortion rights and protestantism. The IRA was involved in sectarian killings of other Irish workers who were not Catholics...

I know of only two members of the RM who ever wanted to set up anything like a theocracy, and they ended up leaving the movement because they couldn't make their views influence the RM's official policies.

Even making just a casual glance at available republican literature from AP/RN to Eire Nua, etc, it's clear there's nothing even approaching theocracy there

There's some bizarre posts in this thread, even worse than the usual quoting Marx out of context lying by omission rubbish

[Niccolò Rossi]

A few years later Marx perhaps forgot that 'Irish' and 'English' workers don't actually exist since workers have no country;

"...What the Irish need is:

1. Self-government and independence from England..."


Interesting to point out that Marx had sympathies and even support for the Fenians who were bombing the living hell out of everything in the 1800's.

I did this yesterday elsewhere on this forum but I will do it once again since people don't seem to understand the message with regard to the position of Marx and Engels on the question of national liberation and war:

“Anyone who today refers to Marx’s attitude towards the wars of the epoch of the progressive bourgeoisie, and forgets Marx’s statement that the ‘workingmen have no country’ – a statement that applies precisely to the period of the reactionary and outmoded bourgeoisie, to the epoch of the socialist revolution, is shamelessly distorting Marx, and is substituting the bourgeois point of view for the socialist.” (Lenin, Socialism and War)

[pastradamus]

I did this yesterday elsewhere on this forum but I will do it once again since people don't seem to understand the message with regard to the position of Marx and Engels on the question of national liberation and war:

“Anyone who today refers to Marx’s attitude towards the wars of the epoch of the progressive bourgeoisie, and forgets Marx’s statement that the ‘workingmen have no country’ – a statement that applies precisely to the period of the reactionary and outmoded bourgeoisie, to the epoch of the socialist revolution, is shamelessly distorting Marx, and is substituting the bourgeois point of view for the socialist.” (Lenin, Socialism and War)

I fail to see anything which relates to and/or excuses marx's views towards the fenians in this context. Please refute the point further in the interests of clarity.
A good point to say in that Marx believed that progressive society did not include that of working class borders. However he did understand ethnic divisions and gave a general prognosis on the various matters in his opinion. Obviously he accredited these ethnic and basically fake divisions to the bourgeois and capitalist system but nevertheless understood in dramatically great detail what conditions the working class were going through in the set era during the set time. Marx was a realists, simply put.

Moreover, Marx showed his complete disgust to the Home Rule movement in Ireland at that time describing it as "bourgeois government for the bourgeois concern". This was very true. Marx gave his sympathies to then infantile republican movement which he considered to be grassroots Revolution. A sort of pre-requisite to the possible leftist revolution which he advocated. Marx would be a serious analysis if still alive today. It would be most interesting as to what he had to say on the issue of republicanism im sure we all agree. But Marx was a realist and the very nature of this is that we often find Marx slightly contradictory, this is because he took things at face value and afterwards examined things in a nature only suiting to his opinion. He was a genius, He was a realist, He was a historian and he was a revolutionary. I find it completely absured that anyone could find it fitting to address him in a modern context with 100% certainty that he would agree with them based on what was written for the rest of the world whilst forgetting what he wrote concerning Ireland.

[Coggeh]

“Anyone who today refers to Marx’s attitude towards the wars of the epoch of the progressive bourgeoisie, and forgets Marx’s statement that the ‘workingmen have no country’ – a statement that applies precisely to the period of the reactionary and outmoded bourgeoisie, to the epoch of the socialist revolution, is shamelessly distorting Marx, and is substituting the bourgeois point of view for the socialist.” (Lenin, Socialism and War)
Marx was a sympathiser with the fenian movement .

http://athenian-legacy.com/ro/2008/12/marx-engels-the-daughters-of-marx-the-irish-revolution/

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1867/fenians.htm

Etc.

[Niccolò Rossi]

@ Coggeh and Pastradamus:

Obviously neither of you understand what I mean by my post or by the quote, I'm not disputing or arguing with regard to Marx's postion on the Fenians or even more generally his positions with regard to bourgeois wars and national liberation movements. What I am trying to get across here is that the logic that you are using is rubbish. Basically it boils down to saying "Here, look, Marx supported x national liberation movement, y bourgeois war and political tactic z, so should we". I think Pastradamus shows this beautifully when he says that it is "hat it is "completely absured that anyone could find it fitting to address him in a modern context with 100% certainty that he would agree with them based on what was written for the rest of the world whilst forgetting what he wrote concerning Ireland". Here there is no attempt to understand or comprehend the context in which Marx was written and that which we live in today. Lenin on the other hand understood this. Even though he very much the same conclusions he understood the bankruptcy of this logic.

[pastradamus]

@ Coggeh and Pastradamus:

Obviously neither of you understand what I mean by my post or by the quote, I'm not disputing or arguing with regard to Marx's postion on the Fenians or even more generally his positions with regard to bourgeois wars and national liberation movements. What I am trying to get across here is that the logic that you are using is rubbish. Basically it boils down to saying "Here, look, Marx supported x national liberation movement, y bourgeois war and political tactic z, so should we". I think Pastradamus shows this beautifully when he says that it is "hat it is "completely absured that anyone could find it fitting to address him in a modern context with 100% certainty that he would agree with them based on what was written for the rest of the world whilst forgetting what he wrote concerning Ireland". Here there is no attempt to understand or comprehend the context in which Marx was written and that which we live in today. Lenin on the other hand understood this. Even though he very much the same conclusions he understood the bankruptcy of this logic.

So you are basically saying that Lenin is someone who understood Marx(yes he did in that regard) and was thoroughly puritan Marxist himself? Thats Bankruptcy in my opinion as Lenin's views were much different to Marx's on many points up to and including Religion, Implementation of revolution, democratic workers control etc etc. You cant quote Lenin as if it would be Marx's opinion. They were different indivudals.

[Niccolò Rossi]

So you are basically saying that Lenin is someone who understood Marx(yes he did in that regard) and was thoroughly puritan Marxist himself? Thats Bankruptcy in my opinion as Lenin's views were much different to Marx's on many points up to and including Religion, Implementation of revolution, democratic workers control etc etc. You cant quote Lenin as if it would be Marx's opinion. They were different indivudals.

:blink:

No, that's not at all what I am saying. I'm honestly getting confused here. Are we reading the same posts?

Cumannach and yourself both referred to Marx to justify your support for the Irish republican movement (as many leftists do to justify their support for any number of national liberation movements, bourgeois wars and even political tactics (parliamentarianism, unionism, etc.)

I objected to this, using a quote from Lenin to express this argument, that this logic "forgets Marx’s statement that the ‘workingmen have no country’ – a statement that applies precisely to the period of the reactionary and outmoded bourgeoisie" and in applying it to the "epoch of the socialist revolution, is shamelessly distorting Marx, and is substituting the bourgeois point of view for the socialist". In other words, people such as yourself who use this line of argument, ignore completely the context in which Marx was writing, that of a progressive, youthful and expanding capitalism, and apply it dogmatically in an era when capitalism has outlived it's historic mission and entered defintively into it's period of decadence and imperialism. I wasn't disputing any of the facts or details provided, only the logic (or lack of) used here as a side matter from the original discussion.

Does that clarify the situation? Or are you still confused?

[brigadista]

Marxism, Nationalism and National Struggles Today
A discussion document for the New Socialist Group (1996)
by David McNally
http://www.newsocialist.org/newsite/index.php?id=96

this article clarifies the position of both marx and lenin includes trotsky and luxemburg also

"...argued Lenin, it is such principled opposition to the dominant nationalism that will enable workers in the oppressed nation to move from nationalism to socialism. While socialists in the oppressor nation advocate the rights of the oppressed to self-determination, socialists in the oppressed nation “must attach prime significance to the unity and merging of the workers of the oppressed nations with those of the oppressor nations; otherwise these Social-Democrats will involuntarily become the allies of their own national bourgeoisie” (Collected Works, v. 21, 409). "

[Devrim]

Secondly lets not forget that these "gangs" had massive public support.
They would not have been able to function in these working class areas without their support.

As I thought we agreed recently, the fact that an organisation has widespread support in working class areas does not, by necessity, make it a socialist of revolutionary organisation.

Unionist parties also get massive support in working class areas.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Give me an example of Innocent Irish Protestant workers who were killed by the IRA for simply not being catholics?

Kingsmill, as already mentioned on this thread.

Devrim

[Devrim]

But then, what am I saying, none of that matters, since Marx was no revolutionary, as he actually lived and acted in the real world.


Interesting to point out that Marx had sympathies and even support for the Fenians who were bombing the living hell out of everything in the 1800's.


Anyone who today refers to Marx’s attitude towards the wars of the epoch of the progressive bourgeoisie, and forgets Marx’s statement that the ‘workingmen have no country’ – a statement that applies precisely to the period of the reactionary and outmoded bourgeoisie, to the epoch of the socialist revolution, is shamelessly distorting Marx, and is substituting the bourgeois point of view for the socialist.

What Nic was arguing and what this Lenin quote is saying, for anybody who has failed to understand it, is that although Marx did support Irish nationalism it was in a completely different historical epoch.

The period in which capitalism is in ascendency, and its period of decadence are very different periods, and in our point of view require different political responses from the working class.

Now, it is possible to argue that the current period also requires communists to support nationalist parties. That is a different debate. However, the idea that we should support Irish nationalism because Marx did in his day is a complete rejection of Marx's method.

One of the things that the communist left today does share with both Marx and Lenin is a realisation that capitalism has different historical epochs, and that communist theory is not a dogma, but a constantly developing theory based on the needs of the working class.

That does not me that we are always right, or that Marx or Lenin were. It does though make an absolute divide between us, and those who insist on following Marxism like it were some sort of unchanging religious dogma, 'Marx said this, so...".

Devrim

[pastradamus]

Kingsmill, as already mentioned on this thread.

Devrim

HAHA. I was waiting for someone to say it. 'Bandit Country' by Toby Harnden explains this in great detail. The people who committed these attacks were local reactionaries who were outside the IRA command structure. These is absolutely no sound evidence from the sources within the IRA that there was any consultation with the IRA army council on the issue. The Army council has in the past admitted to even the worst attrocities but completely denied this and expressed their disgust in an Interview. While it is true High-ranking members were suspected of being Involved - there is no evidence of Army Council Knowledge.

[pastradamus]

:blink:

Cumannach and yourself both referred to Marx to justify your support for the Irish republican movement (as many leftists do to justify their support for any number of national liberation movements, bourgeois wars and even political tactics (parliamentarianism, unionism, etc.)

I wasn't justifying the Fenians. I was simply replying to Devrim when I mentioned Marx. This might sound strange, but a lot of the left from outside Ireland look in at our situation and see it as a straight-forward situation. Its not nearly as clean-cut. Its a complicated mix of republicanism, Socialism, this theory and that as well as a long an complicated history based on hate and oppression. If you were to actually go up to West Belfast and walk around you would see just how divided working class society is. This is based on false barriers such as religion, traditions and imaginery differences propagated by an overseas Imperialist power. Catholics and Protestants mixed with each other generally quite well before the UK government appealed to Religious Bigotry with such acts as the Penal Laws and others.


I objected to this, using a quote from Lenin to express this argument, that this logic "forgets Marx’s statement that the ‘workingmen have no country’ – a statement that applies precisely to the period of the reactionary and outmoded bourgeoisie" and in applying it to the "epoch of the socialist revolution, is shamelessly distorting Marx, and is substituting the bourgeois point of view for the socialist". In other words, people such as yourself who use this line of argument, ignore completely the context in which Marx was writing, that of a progressive, youthful and expanding capitalism, and apply it dogmatically in an era when capitalism has outlived it's historic mission and entered defintively into it's period of decadence and imperialism. I wasn't disputing any of the facts or details provided, only the logic (or lack of) used here as a side matter from the original discussion.

Does that clarify the situation? Or are you still confused?

Yes It does, Thank you. I can understand your point - its a valid one. However I dont think you clearly understand Irish Republicanism in its various forms. Take for example James Connolly's Teachings which drove Republicans into a new school of learning. A leftist one. Now it is very true to say there are still a mass of Nationalistic right-wing reactionary elements in the General Republican movement but I feel this not true for a party such as the IRSP. When we look at the founding members, such as Costello in the IRSP, he tried to apply Irish Republicanism in a leftist way. The IRA and the INLA are often seen in the same light, this is however an illogical argument as the IRA in the past frequently assassinated INLA and IRSP members - which just goes to show how different the two factions of Republicanism are. There has been a long serving element of Genuine Leftist Republicanism in Ireland - Its not the more obvious school of Republicanism but it is there. Marx clearly saw the potential in a sound leftist Irish Republican movement, hence his likeing of the Fenians, this was largely distorted however with reactionary movements and we see continuous leftist splits away from reactionary elements in the Republican Movement, such as the ISRP,ICA,Communist Party, Saor Eire, IRSP all throughout history spliting from the IRA(in its various names).

[Devrim]

HAHA. I was waiting for someone to say it. 'Bandit Country' by Toby Harnden explains this in great detail. The people who committed these attacks were local reactionaries who were outside the IRA command structure. These is absolutely no sound evidence from the sources within the IRA that there was any consultation with the IRA army council on the issue. The Army council has in the past admitted to even the worst attrocities but completely denied this and expressed their disgust in an Interview. While it is true High-ranking members were suspected of being Involved - there is no evidence of Army Council Knowledge.

Does that me that unless we find evidence that the British Army General staff were involved in the Bloody Sunday massacre, and/or didn't directly order it, we can say that the British Army wasn't guilty of it? I think not personally.

Devrim

[Devrim]

This might sound strange, but a lot of the left from outside Ireland look in at our situation and see it as a straight-forward situation. Its not nearly as clean-cut. Its a complicated mix of republicanism, Socialism, this theory and that as well as a long an complicated history based on hate and oppression. If you were to actually go up to West Belfast and walk around you would see just how divided working class society is.

This idea that there are special local situations has always been the excuse of opportunists and those who would betray the working class since the time of the Second International.
Actually though personally, I have spent a lot of time in places such as West Belfast and Derry (I would imagine more than yourself actually). In which case the idea that people oppose your politics because 'they don't understand the situation' doesn't really work.


The IRA and the INLA are often seen in the same light, this is however an illogical argument as the IRA in the past frequently assassinated INLA and IRSP members - which just goes to show how different the two factions of Republicanism are.

To be fair, INLA members assassinated INLA members too.

Devrim

[Cumannach]

The 'Left Communists' on this thread expressed their opposition to Irish and other national liberation movements by bandying about the slogan 'the workers have no country'. We all know where this comes from of course. Most would know it could be construed to mean whatever you want, out of context, and most can easily understand what it means when read in context;

"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word."

-Marx

Not suprising then, when Marx says what Ireland needs is "Self-government and independence from England".

Next the 'Left Communists' come out with this;

with regard to the position of Marx and Engels on the question of national liberation and war:

“Anyone who today refers to Marx’s attitude towards the wars of the epoch of the progressive bourgeoisie, and forgets Marx’s statement that the ‘workingmen have no country’ – a statement that applies precisely to the period of the reactionary and outmoded bourgeoisie, to the epoch of the socialist revolution, is shamelessly distorting Marx, and is substituting the bourgeois point of view for the socialist.” (Lenin, Socialism and War)

Lenin, during the inter-imperialist blood bath of the First World War, is castigating the opportunists and social chauvinists that tried to use Marx's attitude towards the war of 1870-1, as a justification for their own positions;

"The war of 1870-1871 was a historically progressive war on the part of Germany until Napoleon III was defeated; for the latter, together with the tsar, had oppressed Germany for many years, keeping her in a state of feudal disintegration. But as soon as the war developed into the plunder of France (the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine), Marx and Engels emphatically condemned the Germans. And even at the beginning of that war Marx and Engels approved of the refusal of Bebel and Liebknecht to vote for credits and advised the Social-Democrats not to merge with the bourgeoisie, but to uphold the independent class interests of the proletariat. To apply the appraisal of this bourgeois-progressive and national-liberating war to the present imperialist war means mocking at truth.
...
Whoever refers today to Marx’s attitude towards the wars of the epoch of the progressive bourgeoisie and forgets Man’s statement that “the workers have no fatherland”, a statement that applies precisely to the epoch of the reactionary, obsolete bourgeoisie, to the epoch of the socialist revolution. shamelessly distorts Marx and substitute, the bourgeois for the socialist point of view."

-Lenin

( http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/s+w/index.htm ) -chapter 1

A couple of paragraphs later, in keeping with the well known position of Lenin in any case,

"Socialists cannot achieve their great aim without fighting against all oppression of nations. Therefore, they must without fail demand that the Social-Democratic parties of oppressing countries (especially of the so-called “great” powers) should recognise and champion the right of oppressed nations to self-determination...

...The Socialist of a ruling or colony-owning nation who fails to champion this right is a chauvinist."

-Lenin

Then the Left Communists say it's not their one-liner sloganeering which rejects context, but those of us who support progressive forces who leave context out of sight;




..the logic that you are using is rubbish. Basically it boils down to saying "Here, look, Marx supported x national liberation movement, y bourgeois war and political tactic z, so should we". ...there is no attempt to understand or comprehend the context in which Marx was written and that which we live in today. Lenin on the other hand understood this. Even though he very much the same conclusions he understood the bankruptcy of this logic.




Cumannach and yourself both referred to Marx to justify your support for the Irish republican movement ...

I objected to this, using a quote from Lenin to express this argument, that this logic "forgets Marx’s statement that the ‘workingmen have no country’ ... In other words, people such as yourself who use this line of argument, ignore completely the context in which Marx was writing, that of a progressive, youthful and expanding capitalism, and apply it dogmatically in an era when capitalism has outlived it's historic mission and entered defintively into it's period of decadence and imperialism.


I think it is you who give little attention to context and I think it may be you who are confused, confusing the Marxist and Leninist positions on imperialist wars with the position on wars of national liberation. Marx and Lenin supported progressive forces in so much as it was compatible with the support of the proletariat. National Liberation is usually progressive, and is supported as compatible with the interests of the working class.


What Nic was arguing and what this Lenin quote is saying, for anybody who has failed to understand it, is that although Marx did support Irish nationalism it was in a completely different historical epoch.

No, what Lenin was saying is that in a war of competition between two reactionary established capitalist powers, there is no progressive outcome and 'the workers have no country' as far as these national empire-building wars are concerned, since the conquests of these national armies accrue to the capital of the winning country, and the workers have no capital, the workers have no country.

In a war of national liberation however, there is a progressive outcome, hence Marx's and Lenin's support for the rights of oppressed nations.


That does not me that we are always right, or that Marx or Lenin were. It does though make an absolute divide between us, and those who insist on following Marxism like it were some sort of unchanging religious dogma, '"arx said this, so...".

DevrimThe workers have no country! the workers have no country! the workers have no country!!!!

Seriously though, you don't follow any form of Marxism, dogmatic or otherwise, that is the reason you feel no need to follow any positions of Marx.

[Andropov]

As I thought we agreed recently, the fact that an organisation has widespread support in working class areas does not, by necessity, make it a socialist of revolutionary organisation.
That is true but we must look at the context of this support.
This was a community giving its support to the Republican Armys that defended their Communitys from Pogroms and ethnic cleansing that was the by product of British Imperialism in Ireland.
Which underlines these forces as progressive, not perfect, but never the less progressive.
The full extent of this community support was witnessed when 100,000 people lined the streets of Belfast for a PIRA Volunteer.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The 'Left Communists' on this thread expressed their opposition to Irish and other national liberation movements by bandying about the slogan 'the workers have no country'.

No they don't. Of course, since you know otherwise maybe you'd care to quote it?


"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word."

-Marx

I don't understnad your purpose for bolding the text as you have.


Not suprising then, when Marx says what Ireland needs is "Self-government and independence from England".I don't think this statement has anything to do with Marx's supposed view of the proletariat as being "national" in character. On the contrary, Marx's support for various bourgeois wars and national liberation movements including Irish Republicanism is not at all surprising given the historical context in which Marx was writing, that is, of a historically progressive capitalism and not the era of imperialism and capitalist decadence in which we live today.

Next the 'Left Communists' come out with this;

No actually, the 'Left Communists' did not come out with that at all. One 'Niccolo Rossi' did.


Lenin, during the inter-imperialist blood bath of the First World War, is castigating the opportunists and social chauvinists that tried to use Marx's attitude towards the war of 1870-1, as a justification for their own positions;

Something which just as much applies to the question of wars of national liberation.

A couple of paragraphs later, in keeping with the well known position of Lenin in any case,


"Socialists cannot achieve their great aim without fighting against all oppression of nations. Therefore, they must without fail demand that the Social-Democratic parties of oppressing countries (especially of the so-called “great” powers) should recognise and champion the right of oppressed nations to self-determination...

...The Socialist of a ruling or colony-owning nation who fails to champion this right is a chauvinist."

-Lenin

No one is disputing Lenin's position here. No one is trying to turn Lenin into a left communist. I don't see why you needed to quote this.


Then the Left Communists say it's not their one-liner sloganeering which rejects context, but those of us who support progressive forces who leave context out of sight;

This is slander.

Once again you are mistaken, this time on two counts.

For one, again it is 'Niccolo Rossi' you are quoting and not the communist left.

And secondly, there is not "one-liner sloganeering" here. This is a baseless criticism. You haven't even attempted to address my points. When you do, you will get a real reply.


I think it is you who give little attention to context and I think it may be you who are confused, confusing the Marxist and Leninist positions on imperialist wars with the position on wars of national liberation.

There is no confusion on my part here.


No, what Lenin was saying is that in a war of competition between two reactionary established capitalist powers, there is no progressive outcome and 'the workers have no country' as far as these national empire-building wars are concerned, since the conquests of these national armies accrue to the capital of the winning country, and the workers have no capital, the workers have no country.

What exactly are you objecting to in Devrim's statement. He is completely correct. You on the other hand are making no real objection at all. I think the matter is very clear when one actually refers to the quote, so I will reproduce it again (with my own emphasis) and let people come to their own understanding of what is being said:

"Anyone who today refers to Marx’s attitude towards the wars of the epoch of the progressive bourgeoisie, and forgets Marx’s statement that the ‘workingmen have no country’ – a statement that applies precisely to the period of the reactionary and outmoded bourgeoisie, to the epoch of the socialist revolution, is shamelessly distorting Marx, and is substituting the bourgeois point of view for the socialist." - Lenin, Socialism and War.

In a war of national liberation however, there is a progressive outcome, hence Marx's and Lenin's support for the rights of oppressed nations.

This is the interpretation of Marx in the period of capitalisms ascedency and Lenin's in the period of Imperialism and capitalist decadence. We agree here with Marx, but not with Lenin.


Seriously though, you don't follow any form of Marxism, dogmatic or otherwise, that is the reason you feel no need to follow any positions of Marx.

It is for the very reason that we are Marxists that we do not follow the positions of Marx, but his method.

[Devrim]

That is true but we must look at the context of this support.
So you agree that the support in itself doesn't prove anything.


Which underlines these forces as progressive, not perfect, but never the less progressive.
So what you are saying here is that the support means something because you think its progressive.

Your argument runs on a circular logic. Basically you claim that it is the support of large amounts of workers for a 'progressive' struggle that defines it as 'progressive'.


The full extent of this community support was witnessed when 100,000 people lined the streets of Belfast for a PIRA Volunteer.

I have seen a claimed 5,000,000 people on the streets of Ankara for the funeral of a nationalist. I don't suppose that many people on here would consider the father of Turkish fascism, Alparslan Türkeş, to have been very 'progressive', but I cam assure you that there are leftists in Turkey today, who collaborate with his party because they think it is progressive in struggling for national independence.

Devrim

[PeaderO'Donnell]

It is a very bourgeois way off looking at it though. Revolutionaries believe that the working class has no country.

Devrim


Will regional cultural differences than disappear under Communism?

Will gender differences disappear under the Communism?

Also it is an interesting point that no Irish Republican grouping, not even RSF, has opposed mass immigration into Ireland in recent years which shows the nature of their "nationalism" while loyalist-fascists have been escalating attacks on people who for whatever reason have come here to live and work.

That says something now doesnt it?

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Certainly people were killed. But innocent people? Intentionally? Certainly not. There is no evidence for this. The revolutionaries had no time or interest in the fascist act of simplying walking into towns and killing, raping and burning at will. Why? Because they were anarchists. What sort of anarchist would kill innocent proletarians? What sort of anarchist would rape? What sort of anarchist would spend time out of a social revolution and anti-fascist war doing these things? Clearly, no anarchist would do any of these things and history supports this.

This reminds of me of a time when I pointed out to geniune "Theocratic Roman Catholic" the role played by the Francisican order in the attempted genocide of the Serbian people in WWII...His reply was they couldnt have been involved in anything like that and Why? Because they were Francisicans.

H-V-L-S has a lot to learn about human nature. Things are never black or white and people by adopting some idealogical belief do not suddenly turn into being pure as the driven snow. Also psychopaths will always be attracted to "legitimate" channels for their violence....Just look at the British army.

[Devrim]

Will regional cultural differences than disappear under Communism?

It is an interesting question. I don't see its relevance here though.


Will gender differences disappear under the Communism?

It is a very banal rhetorical question. The answer is obviously not.


Also it is an interesting point that no Irish Republican grouping, not even RSF, has opposed mass immigration into Ireland in recent years which shows the nature of their "nationalism" while loyalist-fascists have been escalating attacks on people who for whatever reason have come here to live and work.

That says something now doesnt it?

Not really no.

Devrim

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Completely Naive. Catholic-Theocratic leanings? Prove this to me. So the vast bulk of the IRA and Sinn Fein members happened to be Catholic? We are talking of people genuinely oppressed, Disenfranchised, excluded from government policies, murdered by police and loyalist mobs as well as being excluded from employment oppurtunities. Of course they are going to do something about it but Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein Manifesto never gave the Catholic church any special position nor even a mention in the state.
There is nothing to suggest anything about abortions and is a completely wafflesome argument.


Given that the Vatitican has always been against Irish Freedom (wasnt it a Pope who "gave" Ireland to the Normans?) and has always condemned Irish Republicanism from its beginnings down through the civil war and up to today it would be strange indeed if Irish Republicans were seeking to establish some type of "Rome rule". Indeed while not being "anti-Thieist" as such Irish Republicanism has always believed in the seperation of Church and State.

The fact that despite the condemnations of the clergy the Irish people went ahead and attempted to drive the British state out of Ireland I think shows that we werent the religious zombies the english mind would have us be.

Infact the Levellers were much more "Theocratic"....So what made them "progressive" in the "Leveller's standard"s despite that fact?

Than again such liberbalism is typical of the First World "left"..."We wont support the Tamils and Palestinians desperately trying to resist attempted genocide because they are not paid up supporters of transsexual cats' rights or some such other thing".

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Not really no.

Devrim

Yes it does because reactionary nationalists tend for obvious reasons to oppose mass immigration into their countries.

Workers have no country in the sense that they have no "national interest"...all national states being capitalist ones. Workers have no country in the way that workers have no gender....But obviously in another sense they both have countries and genders.

I hope I have got what I am trying to say across.

[Leo]

Yes it does because reactionary nationalists tend for obvious reasons to oppose mass immigration into their countries.

Turkish nationalists don't. Do you think that says anything about Turkish nationalism and whether it is reactionary or not?

[manic expression]

This is the interpretation of Marx in the period of capitalisms ascedency and Lenin's in the period of Imperialism and capitalist decadence. We agree here with Marx, but not with Lenin.

This argument, put forth both by you and Devrim, falls short. The idea that the "workers have no country" has been answered: the workers are to constitute themselves the nation. Cumannach put this in the plainest of terms and yet there is still a refusal to comprehend the issue. Marx put forth the conclusion that the conquest of the nation by the proletariat is, in itself, a revolutionary act. We learn from Marx that this not only removes bourgeois power, but changes the very meaning of what is "national".


It is for the very reason that we are Marxists that we do not follow the positions of Marx, but his method.

Really? So the fundamental assertion by Marx that workers must constitute themselves as the nation has been outdated by material developments? What changed since then? Marx, upon seeing Ireland occupied by the British, clearly called for the liberation of the former; today, we see entirely six counties of Ireland still occupied by the British, and you say it's different. Well then, tell us what has changed to make Irish liberation so reactionary or anti-worker, beyond some nebulous notion that the bourgeoisie is reactionary.

In the end, the lefts here are pouncing upon isolated phrases written by Marx and parading them about (in isolation) only when it is convenient, but when the actual context of those statements are revealed, all sorts of excuses are made. "The workers have no country", then, is unquestionable, while "[the proletariat] must constitute itself the nation", is outdated and/or irrelevant. Context, and similarly the materialist outlook, and similarly Marxism, is ignored for convenience's sake.

Lastly, on your attempt to separate yourself from lefts in general, I don't think it holds up. You're directly supporting Devrim here, so asserting that your position is one shared by left communists is more than reasonable. Not only is your bid to separate yourself from the communist left semantic, it flies in the face of what you've been posting.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Turkish nationalists don't. Do you think that says anything about Turkish nationalism and whether it is reactionary or not?

Honestly I know hardly anything about Turkey so you will have to forgive my ignorance.

Is immigration an issue over there?

[Andropov]

So you agree that the support in itself doesn't prove anything.
Well it certainly proves these Army's are not merely "gangs".
As you so eloquently put it.

So what you are saying here is that the support means something because you think its progressive.
No I never said that.
I said that you must put the reason for their support into the context of the situation.

Your argument runs on a circular logic. Basically you claim that it is the support of large amounts of workers for a 'progressive' struggle that defines it as 'progressive'.
After misinterpreting me you now jump to this conclusion.

I have seen a claimed 5,000,000 people on the streets of Ankara for the funeral of a nationalist. I don't suppose that many people on here would consider the father of Turkish fascism, Alparslan Türkeş, to have been very 'progressive', but I cam assure you that there are leftists in Turkey today, who collaborate with his party because they think it is progressive in struggling for national independence.
And again you jump to this conclusion after your first initial misinterpretation of my point.
Your arguemnt starts off on a assumption that is no more than a fabrication and so the trail of logic you used throughout falls.

[pastradamus]

Does that me that unless we find evidence that the British Army General staff were involved in the Bloody Sunday massacre, and/or didn't directly order it, we can say that the British Army wasn't guilty of it? I think not personally.

Devrim

Thats a different issue, but an Issue that needs to be investigated. The IRA does not work off the same type of hymn sheet as the British Army. The IRA exercise direct Centralised Control of its members. It delivers a code of practice in the form of its "green book". It contains a quatermaster, general staff and even an engineering unit. Every order comes directly from the top. That is until we enter the realm of South Armagh. Here we see numerous units of reactionary elements. Martin McKevitt was one of those supposedly involved in Kingsmill. This is unsurprising as he was later head of the RIRA and became more and more alienated from the IRA GAC (general army council) before and after Kingsmill.
We compare this on bloody sunday where the British Army on the other hand designated members and smaller commanders to make decisions based on circumstance without no real sense of upper-echelon approval (typical to any national modern army). The British army are guilty of it as they empowered members of its force to committ acts of blatant murder. The IRA members who did kingsmill deserve to die and should have been taken care of by the GAC -this is what I cannot understand. However they strongly denied any involvement in the Murders, something unusual to the IRA GAC. Everytime a bomb went off the came forward with a confession. This in no way excuse's them but I feel the GAC were not responsible for the Kingsmill Massacre.

[Devrim]

Thats a different issue, but an Issue that needs to be investigated. The IRA does not work off the same type of hymn sheet as the British Army. The IRA exercise direct Centralised Control of its members. It delivers a code of practice in the form of its "green book". It contains a quatermaster, general staff ...

I am perfectly aware of how the IRA used to be organised. I just don't see what relevance this has at all. The IRA committed this action no matter where the orders came from or the decision was made.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Honestly I know hardly anything about Turkey so you will have to forgive my ignorance.

Is immigration an issue over there?

No, hardly at all, but then it wasn't in Ireland until very recently either.

Devrim

[PeaderO'Donnell]

No, hardly at all, but then it wasn't in Ireland until very recently either.

Devrim

And yet in Ireland reactionary Catholic elements have jumped on the issue and Republicans have been involved in anti-racist campaigns...

Immigration has been an issue here since the late 1990s. Obviously not as long as in England but still I think that we can draw some conclusions from these facts.

[Andropov]

The IRA committed this action no matter where the orders came from or the decision was made.
Renegade members of the PIRA.
This fact that it was an unsanctioned killing is blatantly relevant.
There are bad eggs in every organisation and to think that there would not be sectarian elements within the PIRA at this time given the social context of the Northern Statelet is just completely naive and divorced from reality.
The actions of some renegade members do not condemn the whole movement, it merely shows us that the PIRA existed within the most bigoted country in europe at the time of Kingsmill and was not completely immune to its social context.

[pastradamus]

I am perfectly aware of how the IRA used to be organised. I just don't see what relevance this has at all. The IRA committed this action no matter where the orders came from or the decision was made.

Devrim

Your absolutely correct. This was done by IRA members, regardless of where the orders did/or did not come from. The individuals involved are what should be looked at here Dev, Mckevitt and the So call West Belfast "Marxist" Brian Keenan are two who I think should be blamed. McKevitt IMO Definitely had a hand in this but Keenan needs to be examined also - not that I care for either mind.

[pastradamus]

This idea that there are special local situations has always been the excuse of opportunists and those who would betray the working class since the time of the Second International.
Actually though personally, I have spent a lot of time in places such as West Belfast and Derry (I would imagine more than yourself actually). In which case the idea that people oppose your politics because 'they don't understand the situation' doesn't really work.


I am an advocate of Grass-roots Socialism. I work in a Union. I myself work with people as Individuals on a case-by-case basis. I feel various countries must, Inevitably by the same principle be worked according to this entailment. Marx himself wrote Prefix's to varying states as he clearly knew that different countries have different systems of governance and different situations both based on the working class and on civil and social rights as well as based on economic developement. This is in no way to suggest that I support Stalins Idea of "socialism in one country" and In no way do I support the Second Internationals Idea of Excluding the Anarcho-Syndicalist movement or exclusion of the various Unions for that matter - which in my opinion is a perfect example of dissolving socialism and indeed showed itself to be an example of crony leftism.


To be fair, INLA members assassinated INLA members too.

Devrim

Yes, they did. Good point. Im not an IRSP member and I have my problems with the IRSP but I will say they are an example of progressive leftism in their climate. Any Militant group like the INLA are always going to attract scum and drug dealers and others - many of whom the INLA have bumped off and assassinated in the past. Other examples of the INLA killing the INLA must be viewed on a case by case basis and cannot be clean cut generally.

[Niccolò Rossi]

This argument, put forth both by you and Devrim, falls short. The idea that the "workers have no country" has been answered: the workers are to constitute themselves the nation. Cumannach put this in the plainest of terms and yet there is still a refusal to comprehend the issue.

Where is this supposed "refusal to comprehend the issue"? What arguement being put forward by Devrim and I is "falling short"? In what sense is the need for workers to "constitute themselves the nation" a 'solution' to the fact that "workers have no country". If there is one conclusion that can be drawn from this very principle, it is not that "workers must constitute themselves the nation" (although this is true), but rather that the interests of the workering class are unified globally and transent national boundaries, something some posters in this thread have seemed to want to play down.


Really? So the fundamental assertion by Marx that workers must constitute themselves as the nation has been outdated by material developments?

Nowhere in the given quote from my post have I made that claim. Stop putting words in peoples mouths.

On the issue itself, I think it's really a matter of how we choose to interpret the phrase, but this is another issue entirely.


What changed since then? Marx, upon seeing Ireland occupied by the British, clearly called for the liberation of the former; today, we see entirely six counties of Ireland still occupied by the British, and you say it's different. Well then, tell us what has changed to make Irish liberation so reactionary or anti-worker, beyond some nebulous notion that the bourgeoisie is reactionary.

Capitalism ceased to be a historically progressive mode of production. Though it's not like any of this would matter to anyone but a Marxist.

The entrance of capitalism into it's era of decadence, that is imperialism, meant the impossibility of national liberation, with all nation states and national struggles coming under the wing of one or another larger imperialist power and also the imperialist character of even the smallest nations and even proto-nations fighting for national liberation. However, this is a much bigger topic for another thread.


In the end, the lefts here are pouncing upon isolated phrases written by Marx and parading them about (in isolation) only when it is convenient

Again, no where is this happening. Either quote it or admit you are lying.


but when the actual context of those statements are revealed, all sorts of excuses are made.

And here's the irony. I entered this thread only to make the comment that it is wrong to quote Marx's position on the Irish question without taking into account the context in which he wrote and now I am accused of neglecting context!


Lastly, on your attempt to separate yourself from lefts in general, I don't think it holds up. You're directly supporting Devrim here, so asserting that your position is one shared by left communists is more than reasonable. Not only is your bid to separate yourself from the communist left semantic, it flies in the face of what you've been posting.

I have not attempted to distance myself from the communist left in any way. My point was that my comments can not and should not be taken as that of the communist left as a whole. To do such would be totally dishonest.

Beside, don't you think you're just a little hypocritcal here? Maybe I need to jog you're memory? In the thread "Marxist-Leninism vs Left Communism" some months ago you made the claim that:


I don't believe Marmot to be representative of the ICC, and so I dealt with his arguments on their own merits. One should never expect me to assume what someone meant if they failed to specify the context.

This was of course despite Marmot linking to the ICC in his signature and listing the ICC under his organisation field, being an open sympathiser. Of course who needs to be consistant with what they say. Hypocracy is so much easier, especially when you can get away with it.

[manic expression]

Where is this supposed "refusal to comprehend the issue"? What arguement being put forward by Devrim and I is "falling short"? In what sense is the need for workers to "constitute themselves the nation" a 'solution' to the fact that "workers have no country". If there is one conclusion that can be drawn from this very principle, it is not that "workers must constitute themselves the nation" (although this is true), but rather that the interests of the workering class are unified globally and transent national boundaries, something some posters in this thread have seemed to want to play down.

So the supporters of Irish liberation are playing down the international interests of the workers? What are you saying here?

More to the point, the need for workers to "constitute themselves the nation" DOES solve the fact that "workers have no country". Under capitalism, the nation is led and defined by bourgeois interests, whereas working-class states redefine what it means to be a nation, a country. That revolutionary act is exactly what the supporters of Irish liberation are promoting, I fail to see how that "play[s] down" the principle of internationalism, because it doesn't.

Like I've said before, you can go to Belfast and see murals depicting the unity of the Irish and Palestinian peoples; in direct defiance of this fact, you continue to play down the strong internationalism exhibited by the supporters of Irish liberation.


Nowhere in the given quote from my post have I made that claim. Stop putting words in peoples mouths.

I was asking you. Have Marx's statements in this regard (Irish liberation, the national character, etc.) been outdated by material developments?


On the issue itself, I think it's really a matter of how we choose to interpret the phrase, but this is another issue entirely.

It's not about interpretation, it's about you implying the historical context has changed completely. That is what we will discuss below.


Capitalism ceased to be a historically progressive mode of production. Though it's not like any of this would matter to anyone but a Marxist.

The entrance of capitalism into it's era of decadence, that is imperialism, meant the impossibility of national liberation, with all nation states and national struggles coming under the wing of one or another larger imperialist power and also the imperialist character of even the smallest nations and even proto-nations fighting for national liberation. However, this is a much bigger topic for another thread.

On the contrary, the development of imperialism necessitated national liberation. Monopoly capital and the forceful acquisition of markets made national struggles against imperialism progressive. You try to apply the label "imperialist" to all nations and all national liberation movements, which is simply false. To be imperialist, one must take on the characteristics of an imperialist nation (see above), not just feature bourgeois elements. If blindly applying labels in order to fit your worldview is your aforementioned "method", I think that clears up quite a bit.

Again, Marx saw an occupied Ireland and demanded its liberation from British guns. Today, we see no less than six occupied counties and we are supposed to demand something else?


Again, no where is this happening. Either quote it or admit you are lying.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1425457&postcount=53


And here's the irony. I entered this thread only to make the comment that it is wrong to quote Marx's position on the Irish question without taking into account the context in which he wrote and now I am accused of neglecting context!

The question here is whether or not people are taking "the workers have no country" out of context, which is precisely what is happening; Marx's plain statements, which have been posted here multiple times, prove this. The identification of the nation with the working class is a revolutionary victory.


I have not attempted to distance myself from the communist left in any way. My point was that my comments can not and should not be taken as that of the communist left as a whole. To do such would be totally dishonest.

When you're backing up Devrim, it's not a stretch to say "the 'left communists' on this thread" when referring to (what else?) "left communists" on this thread.


Beside, don't you think you're just a little hypocritcal here? Maybe I need to jog you're memory? In the thread "Marxist-Leninism vs Left Communism" some months ago you made the claim that:

This was of course despite Marmot linking to the ICC in his signature and listing the ICC under his organisation field, being an open sympathiser. Of course who needs to be consistant with what they say. Hypocracy is so much easier, especially when you can get away with it.

Organizations do not equal tendencies. "ICC" does not equal "the 'left communists' on this thread". Two very different things.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Like I've said before, you can go to Belfast and see murals depicting the unity of the Irish and Palestinian peoples; in direct defiance of this fact, you continue to play down the strong internationalism exhibited by the supporters of Irish liberation.

You can call it what you like.


I was asking you. Have Marx's statements in this regard (Irish liberation, the national character, etc.) been outdated by material developments?

You are amalgamating two different issues here. Marx's positions re bourgeois wars and wars of national liberation have been outdated, yes. Marx's statements in the communist manifesto with regard to the international character of the working class. I would also say that the proletariat does not have a national character and I think your instistance that it does is a distortion of Marx's own words. I think the real content of the quote from the Communist Manifesto to which we are referring has much ambiguity, but I think this is a discussion in itself.


On the contrary, the development of imperialism necessitated national liberation. Monopoly capital and the forceful acquisition of markets made national struggles against imperialism progressive.

This rests on two assumptions. One, that independant and truely national liberation struggles are even possible in the era of imperialism, without comming under the wing of one or another large imperialist power or bloc. Two, that we can speak of a non-imperialist national capital.


To be imperialist, one must take on the characteristics of an imperialist nation (see above), not just feature bourgeois elements.

I think this line of argument reflects very much the empiricist (though not necessarily entirely incorrect) analysis of Imperialism offered by Lenin



http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1425457&postcount=53 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showpost.php?p=1425457&postcount=53)

This is one example and in the context of a self proclaimed socialist stating that "No, only one side was occupying someone else's country". Even you're own argument goes against this statement. I don't see how you would have approached this any other way.


The question here is whether or not people are taking "the workers have no country" out of context, which is precisely what is happening; Marx's plain statements, which have been posted here multiple times, prove this. The identification of the nation with the working class is a revolutionary victory.

I don't believe anyone is taking the statement out of context.

I don't think this discussion is either fruitful or interesting, though I would say that about most of your incessant racing and ranting in your tail-ending of nationalist groups. Unless there is a point to this that I am not seeing I really can't be bothered with this conversation any longer.

[Devrim]

And yet in Ireland reactionary Catholic elements have jumped on the issue and Republicans have been involved in anti-racist campaigns...

Immigration has been an issue here since the late 1990s. Obviously not as long as in England but still I think that we can draw some conclusions from these facts.

Actually, I think of the late 1990s as relatively recent, but never mind. I don't think that you can judge the class basis of a political organisation solely on its attitude to immigration. How would you consider Konrad Adenauer? After all he invited the Turkish guest workers to Germany? At times all but the most reactionary bourgeois factions will support immigration.

The Labour Party is involved in 'anti-racist' campaigns.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Your absolutely correct. This was done by IRA members, regardless of where the orders did/or did not come from. The individuals involved are what should be looked at here Dev, Mckevitt and the So call West Belfast "Marxist" Brian Keenan are two who I think should be blamed. McKevitt IMO Definitely had a hand in this but Keenan needs to be examined also - not that I care for either mind.

But does it matter who the individuals involved were? Would prosecuting individual squaddies change the role of the British state in Northern Ireland?

I think that there is more to it than that. These sort of things are endemic to these type of nationalist gangs.


Yes, they did. Good point. Im not an IRSP member and I have my problems with the IRSP but I will say they are an example of progressive leftism in their climate. Any Militant group like the INLA are always going to attract scum and drug dealers and others - many of whom the INLA have bumped off and assassinated in the past. Other examples of the INLA killing the INLA must be viewed on a case by case basis and cannot be clean cut generally.

Well yes. You know what happens to these sort of organisations, not because they are bad or subjectively against the working class, but because this is the logic of these type of organisations. Nationalist gangs have a tendency to do this.

This is the other (idealist) approach;


Renegade members of the PIRA.
This fact that it was an unsanctioned killing is blatantly relevant.
There are bad eggs in every organisation...


Devrim

[Cumannach]

When Lenin is arguing against the workers supporting their national states, when these national states are imperialist states, fighting over who will get to opress the largest number of nations, he takes issue with social chauvinists who try and conflate Marx's position on wars of national defence and wars of the progressive bourgeoisie against feudalism and reaction, wars against oppression, with wars of imperialist aggression, wars of 'redividing' the spoils of imperialist oppression.

You try and take some meaning out of Lenin's point to the effect that, 'the world is now in a different capitalist epoch' where oppressed nations no longer can struggle to end their oppression'. This is peculiar given Lenin argued no such thing and actually showed how Marx could never or would never have argued such a thing. That's why it's strange to utilitize a line of Lenin's when attempting to explain how Marx is outdated, a line taken from a work actually explaining why it's not outdated.

The liberation of North East Ulster would be progressive, as much in the epoch of progressive capitalism as of moribund imperialism, because it would end oppression of one nation by an imperialist power.

[manic expression]

You can call it what you like.

I call it what it is.


You are amalgamating two different issues here. Marx's positions re bourgeois wars and wars of national liberation have been outdated, yes. Marx's statements in the communist manifesto with regard to the international character of the working class. I would also say that the proletariat does not have a national character and I think your instistance that it does is a distortion of Marx's own words. I think the real content of the quote from the Communist Manifesto to which we are referring has much ambiguity, but I think this is a discussion in itself.

Those are the two issues in question here. On the Manifesto, I think the statement is plain and quite clear: the proletariat must constitute itself the nation. The only ambiguity here is the refusal of the "left communists" on this thread to accept the revolutionary acts laid out by Marx.


This rests on two assumptions. One, that independant and truely national liberation struggles are even possible in the era of imperialism, without comming under the wing of one or another large imperialist power or bloc. Two, that we can speak of a non-imperialist national capital.

Those two assumptions are correct. Non-imperialist capitalist classes are a reality in this epoch; they may have ambitions for imperialism, but that is tangential. The point comes down to national liberation struggles, not the future desires of every bourgeoisie.


I think this line of argument reflects very much the empiricist (though not necessarily entirely incorrect) analysis of Imperialism offered by Lenin

Lenin, however, was a strong supporter of Irish liberation. He's the one who refined the analysis of imperialism you're promoting, and yet you can't help but contradict the conclusions of that same Marxist. It's not unlike your stance on Marx's writings.

If you accept Lenin's analysis of imperialism in any significant degree, why reject his position on national liberation?


This is one example and in the context of a self proclaimed socialist stating that "No, only one side was occupying someone else's country". Even you're own argument goes against this statement. I don't see how you would have approached this any other way.

That statement was and is completely true. The British are occupying Ireland, the Irish are occupying nothing. Marx and Lenin both agree with what the supporters of Irish liberation have been saying here.


I don't believe anyone is taking the statement out of context.

Devrim did.

[robbo203]

"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word."

A few years later Marx perhaps forgot that 'Irish' and 'English' workers don't actually exist since workers have no country;

"...What the Irish need is:

1. Self-government and independence from England..."

But then, what am I saying, none of that matters, since Marx was no revolutionary, as he actually lived and acted in the real world.


If you actually read what Marx was saying here, he is not advocating nationalism - the false and mystifying notion that workers do have a country which they share in common with their capitalist exploiters - he was only sugesting support for nationalist struggle as a means to an end -to to eliminate precapitalist obstacles to the development of capitalism and hence the proletariat - NOT AN END IN ITSELF. This is the point that the nationalists of the pro-capitalist left consistently fail to appreciate. By the 1870s Marx was already beginning to change his mind on even this (dubious) approach.

Today in 2009 there is absolutely no excuse to support any kind of nationalist struggle whatsoever. It is utterly reactionary and only promotes collusion with the capitalist class and hences reinforces capitalism. Capitalism is global and the only alternative is world socialism. Anyone who supports nationalism or national liberation struggles today thereby forfeits any right to be considered a socialist. Nationalism is the enemy of the working class

[Pogue]

Why are you acting on the assumption that Marx couldn't possibly have been wrong?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I have no problem with the execution of Fascists in a fucking civil war.

They didnt kill people who disobeyed, they killed deserters. As did Makhno.

I'm not talking about fascists talking about members who disobeyed orders. Did they not kill them?

[robbo203]

Why are you acting on the assumption that Marx couldn't possibly have been wrong?


Hi HLVS

Was your question addressed to me - only its a bit confusing :( I do happen to think Marx was wrong in stratigically supporting certain nationalist struggles even if he never supported nationalism. And there are a few other things were I thing Marx went astray

[Andropov]

This is the other (idealist) approach;
Would you mind expanding on how that was an idealistic analyses?
Or even addressing my point constructively instead of fobbing it off with your trendy buzzwords.

Devrim.

[Pogue]

Hi HLVS

Was your question addressed to me - only its a bit confusing :( I do happen to think Marx was wrong in stratigically supporting certain nationalist struggles even if he never supported nationalism. And there are a few other things were I thing Marx went astray

I get a bit vexed when people quotw Marx as if, if marx said it, its the correct position. he had his views and was present in his time, doesn't make him the universal truth sayer.

[robbo203]

I get a bit vexed when people quotw Marx as if, if marx said it, its the correct position. he had his views and was present in his time, doesn't make him the universal truth sayer.

I agree but there are those who twist Marx to suit their own Leninist ends which vexes me as well. That said Marx was wrong on a number of things and I have no scruples in stating my disagreement with him

[pastradamus]

But does it matter who the individuals involved were? Would prosecuting individual squaddies change the role of the British state in Northern Ireland?

I think that there is more to it than that. These sort of things are endemic to these type of nationalist gangs.


Absolutely Dev. It would matter in the interests of Justice. If I go down the Street and kill 13 people the government will prosecute me for mass murder -and rightfully so. Using the guise of Authority to cover up murder is completely unacceptable to rational and democratic people. The Same is true for the Kingsmill murders - these people SHOULD be brought to Justice. Promoting sectarianism is a tumor which should cut out.

Your Use of the term "nationalist Gangs" couldnt be more accurate. It was a violent and evil gang of individuals who killed innocent workers - it was not necessarily the IRA in general, this is obvious in the way they used the term "south armagh action force". I believe its a failing of the Provisional General Army Council not to distance themselves or eliminate these entities. Now im not a fan of the IRA and so Im not defending them Im simply stating that this isnt a clean cut issue.


Well yes. You know what happens to these sort of organisations, not because they are bad or subjectively against the working class, but because this is the logic of these type of organisations. Nationalist gangs have a tendency to do this.

This is the other (idealist) approach;

Devrim

I wouldnt brand the INLA a Nationalist Gang. But I would christen a few of its members as being gangsters if that makes logic? I mean that the INLA themselves will admit that circumstances exists/have existed where its members abused their authority for personal gain. In west Belfast recently the Loyalists rioted to try and provoke the INLA out of its ceasefire, the INLA didnt act and so did not give into the violence provokations which just goes to show their political mindness. The genuine members have also been most active in 'cleaning up' the act of some of its members - Derry City especially. In places such as Dublin we often see renegade forces outside their control acting like capitalist maggots. This is something they've often distanced themselves from without resorting to violence. I believe as a whole and speaking generally, the IRSP/INLA do serve the Working class interests. A guy I knew by the name of Jim Lane(Jim being both an IRSP member and a Level-Headed and active shop steward in the Large Cashes department store in Cork City) here in Cork was a prominent Shop Steward who educated me to an extent in the ways of Trade Unionism - something I am eternally grateful for.

[pastradamus]

I agree but there are those who twist Marx to suit their own Leninist ends which vexes me as well. That said Marx was wrong on a number of things and I have no scruples in stating my disagreement with him


YES,YES and YES.

Its unbecoming of any Leftist and also unbecoming of any student of Marx to Associate his teachings 100% with that of Lenin. There are Huge,Huge differences. Lenin Short-circuited Marxism. Had different views on many,many levels, everything from dictatorship of the proletariat to religion. Really an Excellent point of view and well said.

I have my problems with Marx, but I still call myself a Marxist. I believe in Logical entrepretation of marx rather than taking his word for certain truth and apply him directly on that basis whilst showing ignorance to context as I have seen on many a leftist agenda.

[Devrim]

Would you mind expanding on how that was an idealistic analyses?
Or even addressing my point constructively instead of fobbing it off with your trendy buzzwords.

Ha, ha, that is quite amusing the way in which you accuse me of using trendy buzzwords in that 'trendy (lefty)' is possibly the trendiest word for IRSP members to use when fobbing of people's criticisms.

Yes, it is idealist in the way you perceive that an organisation can recruit, train, and arm its militants and when aforementioned militants go out and commit sectarian massacre, the magic wand of denying responsibility absolves that organisation from complicity in the murders.

I don't think that there is much of a point in further addressing your point. The arguments have already been presented. You have your opinion. I have mine. People will make up their own minds.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Absolutely Dev. It would matter in the interests of Justice. If I go down the Street and kill 13 people the government will prosecute me for mass murder -and rightfully so. Using the guise of Authority to cover up murder is completely unacceptable to rational and democratic people. The Same is true for the Kingsmill murders - these people SHOULD be brought to Justice. Promoting sectarianism is a tumor which should cut out.

I don't personally hold much faith in the justice of the British state. I really don't think that communists should be engaging in campaigns to 'bring IRA killers to justice'.


Your Use of the term "nationalist Gangs" couldnt be more accurate. It was a violent and evil gang of individuals who killed innocent workers - it was not necessarily the IRA in general, this is obvious in the way they used the term "south armagh action force". I believe its a failing of the Provisional General Army Council not to distance themselves or eliminate these entities. Now im not a fan of the IRA and so Im not defending them Im simply stating that this isnt a clean cut issue.

There are various stories about Kingsmill and who ordered it, and who knew. Some say that it came from the top, specifically from Twomey. Some say that the leadership didn't know about it until after the event. I don't think we will ever know the true version of events. Most parties are agreed though that it was carried out by IRA men with IRA weapons, which in my opinion is damning enough whoever ordered it.

Devrim

[Andropov]

Ha, ha, that is quite amusing the way in which you accuse me of using trendy buzzwords in that 'trendy (lefty)' is possibly the trendiest word for IRSP members to use when fobbing of people's criticisms.
Devrim I made a structured arguement, you merely fobbed it off as idealistic without putting across any form of counter arguement.


Yes, it is idealist in the way you perceive that an organisation can recruit, train, and arm its militants and when aforementioned militants go out and commit sectarian massacre, the magic wand of denying responsibility absolves that organisation from complicity in the murders.
I agree with you that the PIRA did shoulder some of the responsibility since it was their members who carried out the atrocity and PIRA guns.
That is why I would say that the PIRA should have taken action against this renegade Brigade and give the OBE treatment to the entire unit that carried out the massacre.

[Andropov]

Absolutely Dev. It would matter in the interests of Justice. If I go down the Street and kill 13 people the government will prosecute me for mass murder -and rightfully so. Using the guise of Authority to cover up murder is completely unacceptable to rational and democratic people. The Same is true for the Kingsmill murders - these people SHOULD be brought to Justice. Promoting sectarianism is a tumor which should cut out.

Your Use of the term "nationalist Gangs" couldnt be more accurate. It was a violent and evil gang of individuals who killed innocent workers - it was not necessarily the IRA in general, this is obvious in the way they used the term "south armagh action force". I believe its a failing of the Provisional General Army Council not to distance themselves or eliminate these entities. Now im not a fan of the IRA and so Im not defending them Im simply stating that this isnt a clean cut issue.
Also it should be noted that South Armagh was notorious for its independance from the central command of the PIRA.
It effectively operated by itself with little intervention from the Army Council.
This obviously ment they were less susceptible to touts and to being compromised but also had its own problems, them being that little accountability was to be had when renegade members did carry out atrocitys like kingsmill.
The Army Counicl were never fond of this autonomy but the South Armagh Brigade was possibly its most successfull militarily.
We see what happened when the East Tyrone Brigade started to get into direct confrontation with the PIRA Leadership as an example of how the PIRA looked on autonomous Brigades.

[Devrim]

I agree with you that the PIRA did shoulder some of the responsibility since it was their members who carried out the atrocity and PIRA guns.
That is why I would say that the PIRA should have taken action against this renegade Brigade and give the OBE treatment to the entire unit that carried out the massacre.

The question is though why this sort of thing happens. Is it endemic to these type of organisations, or is it a case of a few 'bad apples', which seems to be your view, and in my opinion is complete idealism.


Also it should be noted that South Armagh was notorious for its independance from the central command of the PIRA.
It effectively operated by itself with little intervention from the Army Council.
This obviously ment they were less susceptible to touts and to being compromised but also had its own problems, them being that little accountability was to be had when renegade members did carry out atrocitys like kingsmill.
The Army Counicl were never fond of this autonomy but the South Armagh Brigade was possibly its most successfull militarily.

Also in this post you seem to suggest that the IRA leadership certainly tolerated the actions of this section as it was 'possibly its most successful militarily', in which case it sort of blows your old '[the] fact that it was an unsanctioned killing is blatantly relevant' argument apart.

Devrim

[Andropov]

The question is though why this sort of thing happens. Is it endemic to these type of organisations, or is it a case of a few 'bad apples', which seems to be your view, and in my opinion is complete idealism.
It happens because the PIRA's members are products of their environment.
And sometimes sectarian elements will infiltrate a movement.
Its enevitable since we look at the context of the 6 counties in which the PIRA existed.


Also in this post you seem to suggest that the IRA leadership certainly tolerated the actions of this section as it was 'possibly its most successful militarily', in which case it sort of blows your old '[the] fact that it was an unsanctioned killing is blatantly relevant' argument apart.
I never suggested that they tolerated South Armagh Devrim.
Only that the Army Council had little to no control over South Armagh.
It will be an inevitability to have certain reactionary elements in every movement its size but what I was stating is that it is not excusable to let a whole Brigade operate free from any supervision of Central Authority that can regulate its actions.
If the Army Council had the ability im sure that Slab would have gone the same way as Jim Lynagh.