Ireland

[Sensible Socialist]

I'll be the first to admit, I know little to nothing about the conflict in Ireland and Northern Ireland. Can anyone reccomend some basic reading on the subject, or give me a quick rundown of what's going on, anything from the religious conflict to the political struggles.

[Irish Left]

Yes comrade. First you could go to a forum called irishrepublican.net. Plenty of info there and if you ask you will be given all the info you want.

Basically Ireland was invaded by the British a few hundred years ago. Since then there have been frequent uprisings to try and drive the imperialists from our country.
Republicanism really came about when the united irishmen where formed. They where mainly protestant Irishmen. Their rebellion was not successful.

The British sent thousands of scottish and english people to Ireland and made them landlords. They then made the native Irish work for them. Most of these landlords (frequently refered to as planters) where protestants though that hardly matters.

In 1916 a few different republican groups came together and organised a rising. On easter they went out and declared the creation of a republic. Strategic positions where taken across Dublin in preparation for conflict. The Proclamation written by the 7 leaders was read outside the General Post Office (GPO) which became HQ for the rising. The flag of the republic was hoisted above.

Over all the rising failed and the ordinary people of Ireland where annoyed and the rebels but when the 7 leaders where then executed and many imprisoned, that opinion. The Most important leader, James Connelly a revolutionary socialist was injured in battle, was dying of sickness but still they tied him to a chair and shot him.

After that the Irish Republican Army was formed and fought the war of independence until 1921 when Micheal Collins sold out and handed the British the 6 northern counties of Ireland in return for a British withdrawal from the other 26 counties.

The IRA then split into the Treaty and anti treaty divisions. There was a civil war and the treaty IRA lead by collins used the same British weapons against their old comrades. Collins was then killed.

Over the next few decades the Anti-treaty IRA then just known as the IRA tried to reignite the war againt the British and drive them from the 6 counties.

The 6 counties was by then a state let ruled by unionists loyal to Britain (AKA the planters) and who where mainly protestant. Catholics who where mainly nationalist where second class citizens who couldn't get jobs or housing etc. They weren't even afforded the same voting rights.

A civil rights movement took off in the 60s made of both protestants and catholics, after a while the government violently suppressed the movement and claimed the civil rights movement was really the IRA.

Then loyalists (hardcore unionists) started attacking catholic areas and burning people out of their homes. The UVF (Ulster Volunteer Force) was behind a lot of it.

Nationalists where calling for the IRA to come and defend them but the leadership had become very Marxist and where unwilling to take action. Then a vast majority of the IRA broke away and formed the PIRA who defended the nationalist areas and later fought against the British occupation. By this time the Brit soldiers where on the streets.

The other part of the IRA now known as the Official IRA started to do a bit of fighting but then in 1974 another split took place and the Irish Republican Socialist Party was formed. They sleeked to both combat the imperialist occupation in Ireland and to bring about socialism. There military wing was the INLA.

So then the was years of fighting which was mainly the PIRA and INLA fighting the British occupation although the British media tried to claim it was a conflict between Catholics and protestants.

During all this the Loyalists formed a few terror groups and attacked random catholic and managed to kill very few IRA or INLA members. The British colluded with these sectarian murder gangs to help spread fear in the nationalist community.

Now the PIRA has given up and their political wing Sinn Fein has gone into power and now administers british rule in Ireland. The INLA has also ended its was but the political party the IRSP continues to move forwards in the aim of bring about a Irish socialist republic.

The are many splinter groups from the PIRA who claim to continue to fight. Though they do very little and only carry out attacks every few months. They are called the CIRA, RIRA, and ONH.



It would be easier if you just went on irishrepublican.net.

[Arm Cathartha na hÉireann]

TA Jackson, a British communist wrote a good book out the history of Ireland which i would recommend called 'Ireland Her Own'. Only goes up to the Irish free state but worth reading as learning about the historic context of British rule and resistnce in ireland makes the conflict easier to understand. As for the troubles its self i dont have a specific book to recommend by there is a excellent series of Documentries on youtube by Arthur MacCaig, the first of which is called 'Patriot Game' which i highly recommend, lots of interviews with republicans and doesnt resort to the simplisitc catholic vs protestent view of the conflict. Hope this helps. BTW might aswell use this thread to ask, does anyone know if there are any writings by Seamus Costello around, always been intrested in him but there seems to be little about him or by him that i can find.

[Irish Left]

TA Jackson, a British communist wrote a good book out the history of Ireland which i would recommend called 'Ireland Her Own'. Only goes up to the Irish free state but worth reading as learning about the historic context of British rule and resistnce in ireland makes the conflict easier to understand. As for the troubles its self i dont have a specific book to recommend by there is a excellent series of Documentries on youtube by Arthur MacCaig, the first of which is called 'Patriot Game' which i highly recommend, lots of interviews with republicans and doesnt resort to the simplisitc catholic vs protestent view of the conflict. Hope this helps. BTW might aswell use this thread to ask, does anyone know if there are any writings by Seamus Costello around, always been intrested in him but there seems to be little about him or by him that i can find.


Have you had a look on the IRSP Website and forum? They published some a few years ago afaik. If you email the IRSP im sure they could sort you out. You shoukd read Ta Powers writings too.

[CommieTroll]

I live in Ireland, I hate this country

[Die Rote Fahne]

The Republican movement is a rather large waste of working class effort. A united working class in Ireland and the UK would be much stronger than the nationalistic IRA, and Connolly types.

[CommieTroll]

The Republican movement is a rather large waste of working class effort. A united working class in Ireland and the UK would be much stronger than the nationalistic IRA, and Connolly types.

You won't believe how many armchair republicans on here would disagree. Every time I try to point that out to some of my friends I end up wanting to bang my head against the wall

[Die Rote Fahne]

You won't believe how many armchair republicans on here would disagree. Every time I try to point that out to some of my friends I end up wanting to bang my head against the wall
*Insert Luxemburg argument here* end of story.

[CommieTroll]

And according to some members of this forum any idea to unite the working class of the UK and Ireland is ''bending over to British Imperialism''. By that logic we have to support the Kims in Korea and Gaddafi

[Die Rote Fahne]

And according to some members of this forum any idea to unite the working class of the UK and Ireland is ''bending over to British Imperialism''. By that logic we have to support the Kims in Korea and Gaddafi
They unwittingly give credit to racialists, who divide the working class, not on national lines, but ethnic and racial lines.

They really can't tell me the difference here. I mean, a united working class in the UK, including the Irish, is much stronger than a divided working class. It's called internationalism for a reason.

[CommieTroll]

They unwittingly give credit to racialists, who divide the working class, not on national lines, but ethnic and racial lines.

They really can't tell me the difference here. I mean, a united working class in the UK, including the Irish, is much stronger than a divided working class. It's called internationalism for a reason.

Exactly, I wonder how some petty nationalism's got mixed up with Leftism, Irish Republicanism & Black Nationalism spring to mind

[Die Rote Fahne]

Exactly, I wonder how some petty nationalism's got mixed up with Leftism, Irish Republicanism & Black Nationalism spring to mind
When it comes to Black Nationalism, I'm not so against. Black nationalism is more a form of Black Liberation than actual divisive nationalism. It's something all people should, and can, support. In fact it should be renamed "Black Liberation".

[Irish Left]

Awk are yous having a nice time bashing those who actualy dare to take on imperialism.

[CommieTroll]

When it comes to Black Nationalism, I'm not so against. Black nationalism is more a form of Black Liberation than actual divisive nationalism. It's something all people should, and can, support. In fact it should be renamed "Black Liberation".

Good point, but there are those militant nationalists that are 100% opposed to whites in general. I guess the most vocal minorities (not blacks in general) leave the longest lasting impression

[Arm Cathartha na hÉireann]

They unwittingly give credit to racialists, who divide the working class, not on national lines, but ethnic and racial lines.

They really can't tell me the difference here. I mean, a united working class in the UK, including the Irish, is much stronger than a divided working class. It's called internationalism for a reason.
Sorry but can you provide any evidence, statements, writings etc by any of the main republican paramilitary groups that can be deemed 'racialist'? Connolly, Costello etc all thought that the main reason for division in Ireland of the working class was the British, who's empire is built on divde and rule. Surely it makes logical sense that this has to be removed to create a class concious united working class? Im genuinly interested to hear what the alternatives are and how they can be carried out.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Awk are yous having a nice time bashing those who actualy dare to take on imperialism.
No man, Al Qaeda and the Taliban ftw.

[CommieTroll]

Awk are yous having a nice time bashing those who actualy dare to take on imperialism.

And how are you ''taking on Imperialism''? I've seen 32CSM rallies and they're pathetic. That group is an unorganized hate group. You sound like a Trotskyist complaining about Stalinist's, so would you kindly shut the fuck up

[brigadista]

And how are you ''taking on Imperialism''? I've seen 32CSM rallies and they're pathetic. That group is an unorganized hate group. You sound like a Trotskyist complaining about Stalinist's, so would you kindly shut the fuck up

yet you have Patria o Muerte under your name!!! lol

[manic expression]

No man, Al Qaeda and the Taliban ftw.
Those would be imperialism's former clients.


And how are you ''taking on Imperialism''? I've seen 32CSM rallies and they're pathetic. That group is an unorganized hate group. You sound like a Trotskyist complaining about Stalinist's, so would you kindly shut the fuck up
Yeah, this is incomprehensible garbage.

[Irish Left]

And how are you ''taking on Imperialism''? I've seen 32CSM rallies and they're pathetic. That group is an unorganized hate group. You sound like a Trotskyist complaining about Stalinist's, so would you kindly shut the fuck up

You really have a hard on for the 32s! When you joining.
And what mighty group arenyou in if the 32s rallys are pathetic?

[Invader Zim]

Awk are yous having a nice time bashing those who actualy dare to take on imperialism.

The problem is that the Republicanism of the mid-20th century right through to the late 90s did not achieve the disolution of the British imperial project in Ireland, rather it extended it by making dialogue politically impossible. No politican who values their career wants to be seen as taking a soft stance on a political movement that plants bombs at funerals or in shopping centres. It is a sure fire way of ensuring that you will not get re-elected. So, leaving aside all the entirely relevent criticisms of nationalism, it should be reconsidered because thus far it hasn't helped at all.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Sorry but can you provide any evidence, statements, writings etc by any of the main republican paramilitary groups that can be deemed 'racialist'? Connolly, Costello etc all thought that the main reason for division in Ireland of the working class was the British, who's empire is built on divde and rule. Surely it makes logical sense that this has to be removed to create a class concious united working class? Im genuinly interested to hear what the alternatives are and how they can be carried out.
I didn't argue that. Go back and read my reply again.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Those would be imperialism's former clients.


Yeah, this is incomprehensible garbage.
Former, yes. They are now glorious anti-imperialist republicans.

[manic expression]

Former, yes. They are now glorious anti-imperialist republicans.
Except they're not...at all.

Listen, when you come up with the slightest shred of justification for your absurd little comparisons, let me know. Until then, you got nothing.

[Invader Zim]

Except they're not...at all.

Listen, when you come up with the slightest shred of justification for your absurd little comparisons, let me know. Until then, you got nothing.


In fairness you don't even have to go far on this forum to see Ghadaffi being portrayed as a martyr.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Except they're not...at all.

Listen, when you come up with the slightest shred of justification for your absurd little comparisons, let me know. Until then, you got nothing.
Did "glorious" not tell you that it was a joke? Jesus...

Let's analyze my points:

Point 1:
The Republican movement is a rather large waste of working class effort. A united working class in Ireland and the UK would be much stronger than the nationalistic IRA, and Connolly types. This point was to express the massive time wasted fighting for independence from Britain, rather than fighting for working class emancipation for all workers within Ireland and Britain.

Point 2:
They unwittingly give credit to racialists, who divide the working class, not on national lines, but ethnic and racial lines.

They really can't tell me the difference here. I mean, a united working class in the UK, including the Irish, is much stronger than a divided working class. It's called internationalism for a reason. This point was NOT comparing the likes of Connolly and the Irish Republicans to racialists or calling them racists, etc.

The point is to show the argument of the Republicans, that internationalism is not a primary part of a Marxist/socialist movement, when it indeed is. As well, my other purpose was comparing the divisiveness of both racialism/racism and nationalism.

The racialists prefer to create divisions on that basis of race, whilst the nationalists create divisions among the workers in an area, based on national identity. The massive waste of time and effort SUBTRACTS, believe it or not, from the class struggle. It diverts the class struggle, and it becomes a bourgeois national struggle, not for working class emancipation from capitalism and exploitation, but Irish emancipation from Britain.

Point 3:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Left http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2223351#post2223351)
Awk are yous having a nice time bashing those who actualy dare to take on imperialism.
No man, Al Qaeda and the Taliban ftw.The mention of these two groups, who are actively engaged in fighting imperialism right now, was to make a point. The point is that fighting imperialism is NOT an exclusively leftist idea or action. Irish Left makes the jab that I am "...bashing those who actualy dare to take on imperialism.". Whilst I am bashing the ideas of nationalism in the republican ideology, I do not denounce anti-imperialist action. In fact, anti-imperialist action would be much more dangerous if the Irish workers were doing it in the name of internationalism. What I do denounce and bash, is their bourgeois nationalism. It is a massive waste of time striving for an independence which will not aid the working class, and will offset and divide the workers of Ireland and GB.

Point 4:
They are now glorious anti-imperialist republicans.This one seemed to be the one that irked you. Not only was it facetious, I thought it was quite obviously facetious. The point is that they are not glorious, nor are they republicans. They are, however, fighting the anti-imperialist good fight, so I am not allowed to bash them...according to Irish Left's analysis that anti-imperialism (although a part of the working class struggle) is only achievable in Ireland through nationalism.

[Irish Left]

The problem is that the Republicanism of the mid-20th century right through to the late 90s did not achieve the disolution of the British imperial project in Ireland, rather it extended it by making dialogue politically impossible. No politican who values their career wants to be seen as taking a soft stance on a political movement that plants bombs at funerals or in shopping centres. It is a sure fire way of ensuring that you will not get re-elected. So, leaving aside all the entirely relevent criticisms of nationalism, it should be reconsidered because thus far it hasn't helped at all.



And what would dialog have done. Do you think republicans could just ask for freedom and the brits would accept? They had been their for hundreds of years they where going nowere.
Republicans reacted to the demands of the working class to efend them from sectarian attacks. Then imperialist soldiers took to the streets and rephblicans bravely took them on.
At that time catholics hadnt got proper, voting, housing or job rights, so they would never have had a chance of freedom via peace. Sure they tried to march and protest but where violently oppressed.

[CommieTroll]

You really have a hard on for the 32s! When you joining.
And what mighty group arenyou in if the 32s rallys are pathetic?

I'm not in any group yet, mostly down to the fact that the Irish left are unorganized and make little difference. Stupid flame wars like this achieve and pointless conflicts like those condoned by the contos and the glorious 32CSM divide the working class, nothing more. You think you morons can ''take on imperialism by standing around and shouting ''free Derry''?

[CommieTroll]

yet you have Patria o Muerte under your name!!! lol

And what does that have to do with anything? Would it make a difference if I had ''Committed User'' or ''Marxist-Leninist'' or even ''Irish Republicanism Is A Joke'' under my name? No it wouldn't, the arguments of you ''Republicans'' are pretty weak, you really only attack me or push my arguments to the side as ''pointless'', your vanity blinds you, until you drop this extreme nationalism none of you can really claim ''to be for the working class''.

[manic expression]

Did "glorious" not tell you that it was a joke? Jesus...
Oh, I know it was a joke...the only question was whether you did or not.


This point was to express the massive time wasted fighting for independence from Britain, rather than fighting for working class emancipation for all workers within Ireland and Britain.Ah, yes...the national liberation of Ireland from imperialism is "time wasted". I wonder what Marx would have to say (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1867/irish-speech.htm) about that....

The Irish question is therefore not simply a question of nationality, but a question of land and existence. Ruin or revolution is the watchword; all the Irish are convinced that if anything is to happen at all it must happen quickly. The English should demand separation and leave it to the Irish themselves to decide the question of landownership. Everything else would be useless.

So have fun with your cute little jokes when Marx said you're wrong about 150 years ago.


The point is to show the argument of the Republicans, that internationalism is not a primary part of a Marxist/socialist movement, when it indeed is. As well, my other purpose was comparing the divisiveness of both racialism/racism and nationalism.Except nationalism need not be divisive. In the context of the Irish struggle for liberation, the only way it's been "divisive" is by dividing progressive workers against Orange cronies for British imperialism. In other respects, it's achieved not only self-determination for the majority of Ireland but the vital self-defense of Irish workers in the occupied counties.

Nice to see you crying crocodile tears for your Unionist friends instead of figuring out what's best for the Irish working class.


The mention of these two groups, who are actively engaged in fighting imperialism right now, was to make a point. The point is that fighting imperialism is NOT an exclusively leftist idea or action. Irish Left makes the jab that I am "...bashing those who actualy dare to take on imperialism.". Whilst I am bashing the ideas of nationalism in the republican ideology, I do not denounce anti-imperialist action. In fact, anti-imperialist action would be much more dangerous if the Irish workers were doing it in the name of internationalism.Actually no, it probably wouldn't be, because Irish nationalism is indeed internationalist. How else do you explain the murals commemorating the struggles of our Palestinian sisters and brothers, or indeed those in support of Blacks in the United States? Too bad you forgot that...regardless, Irish anti-imperialism is progressive in that it seeks the self-determination of the Irish nation.

Since you're more concerned for the feelings of Loyalists than you are for the advancement of the masses of Ireland...it makes sense you wouldn't even be able to put these plain facts together.


This one seemed to be the one that irked you. Not only was it facetious, I thought it was quite obviously facetious. The point is that they are not glorious, nor are they republicans. They are, however, fighting the anti-imperialist good fight, so I am not allowed to bash them...according to Irish Left's analysis that anti-imperialism (although a part of the working class struggle) is only achievable in Ireland through nationalism.You can bash them for many things, but none of those things would be opposition to imperialism.

But thanks a bunch for admitting that your comparison is worthless.

[manic expression]

In fairness you don't even have to go far on this forum to see Ghadaffi being portrayed as a martyr.
Oh, I get it...Gaddafi and the Taliban are the same thing because...umm...wait for it...oh yeah! They're both Muslims. Awesome. Keep the piercing comparisons rolling.

[CommieTroll]

Oh, I get it...Gaddafi and the Taliban are the same thing because...umm...wait for it...oh yeah! They're both Muslims. Awesome. Keep the piercing comparisons rolling.

Now you're just putting words in his mouth when its simply not true, he said the two because they're good examples of ''anti-imperialist martyrs'' especially Gaddafi, a man living in mansions while the working class of Libya rotted and starved under the boots of his regime. You should support the working class in these conflicts, not some tyrant, that's pretty reactionary just blindly stating you support (insert corrupt tyrant here) because he's not friendly with NATO.
Supporting a corrupt regime that doesn't emancipate the proletariat purely on the fact that you support ''anti-imperialism'' is fucking stupid. You my friend, are the one that Marx would laugh at, maybe pity a little to. The only reason these armchair republicans have such a crush on Gaddafi is because he gave the provos a few AK-47's ''to support anti-imperialism''. I wonder if Gaddafi had to wait a few weeks more to get his solid gold dildo because he gave sectarian nationalists a few guns.

[Invader Zim]

And what would dialog have done.

Well, there is a significant possibility that Northern Ireland would have been emancipated from the Union by now if dialogue had been an option 40 years ago. We are living in a period of post-colonialism, and during the second half of the 20th century Britain gave up far more lucrative, and far less controvercial, additions to the empire. I do not see why there is not a possibility that the same could not have been achieved in Northern Ireland, except the obvious factor, that politicians could not be seen to be weak in the face of political violence directed at British civillians.


Do you think republicans could just ask for freedom and the brits would accept?

Who knows? The Republican movement was violent, so the question is academic. That said, the decolonial process in the rest of the Empire, during broadly the same period, saw results which were not necessarly begotten by violent struggle - but ultimately we can only speculate what may, or may not, have happened. However, what most certainly is not speculation is that the violent tactics employed have been successful in emancipating Northern Ireland from the Union.


They had been their for hundreds of years they where going nowere.
Republicans reacted to the demands of the working class to efend them from sectarian attacks. Then imperialist soldiers took to the streets and rephblicans bravely took them on.

You have a very monochrome view of the history of the imperial project in Ireland and the reactions to that project. Your notion that a war is faught by the 'good guys' on one side and the 'baddies' is too simplistic and ignores the fact that there have been cruel, sadistic reactionaries embittering proceedings on both sides of the conflict.

And the whole attitude of trying to justify various tactics and beliefs, regarding this struggle, by going back to misdeeds in the past as far back as the Cromwellian conquest, the Tudor Conquest or even 1169, is just ridiculous. It is that kind of attitude that has made the conflict in Ireland perpetuate itself indefinately.


Oh, I get it...Gaddafi and the Taliban are the same thing because...umm...wait for it...oh yeah! They're both Muslims. Awesome. Keep the piercing comparisons rolling.

Sorry, obviously I wasn't clear. I was refering to the attempt by members of this forum to rehabilitate reactionary groups, regimes and individuals because of their change in stance towards the West. And I cited the attempt to rehabilitate Ghadaffi from being the head of an autocratic, quasi-fascist kleptocratic regime into some kind of anti-imperialist paragon, as an example. Not suggesting that the Taliban and Ghadaffi are synonamous.

[manic expression]

Sorry, obviously I wasn't clear. I was refering to the attempt by members of this forum to rehabilitate reactionary groups, regimes and individuals because of their change in stance towards the West. And I cited the attempt to rehabilitate Ghadaffi from being the head of an autocratic, quasi-fascist kleptocratic regime into some kind of anti-imperialist paragon, as an example. Not suggesting that the Taliban and Ghadaffi are synonamous.
OK, understood. I still don't agree at all...the anti-imperialist line doesn't say that Gaddafi wasn't autocratic, it's that he came to stand against imperialism and for the self-determination of Libya. We don't have to agree or endorse everything a figure does to recognize that s/he was a force against imperialism and thus a force that had a progressive role to play in a certain instance.

What anti-imperialists look to is the defeat of imperialism by non-imperialist forces. Oftentimes, that's the most immediate goal.


Now you're just putting words in his mouth when its simply not true, he said the two because they're good examples of ''anti-imperialist martyrs'' especially Gaddafi, a man living in mansions while the working class of Libya rotted and starved under the boots of his regime. You should support the working class in these conflicts, not some tyrant
Supporting the working class is synonymous with supporting its right to not be enslaved by imperialism. Gaddafi was an autocrat, and one who did oversee a capitalist regime, but imperialist domination over Libya is a step backward for the masses of Libya.

In other words, recognizing the progressive role of Iraq's struggle against the US imperialist invasion is not the same as saying Saddam was a wonderful leader...it's just that in his role as a figure against imperialism, he did stand for the progress of the Iraqi masses.

The immeasurable suffering of the Iraqi people since the invasion (which was piled on top of the suffering caused by the imperialist embargoes) is proof that had Gaddafi been victorious over the forces of imperialism, it would have been beneficial to the masses of Libya. Ignore history at your own peril.

PS please show me where the workers of Libya "starved". Thanks.

[Invader Zim]

What anti-imperialists look to is the defeat of imperialism by non-imperialist forces. Oftentimes, that's the most immediate goal.

And the problem there is that it leads to a situation where people seriously consider the old expression that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and begin to confuse it with being a maxim. To bring this back to Ireland, the same occured during WW2 where elements of the Republican movement collaborated with the Nazis.

The fact is Ghadaffi's regime was not one to be championed by the left, regardless of the fact that the Western powers were drawn into the Libyan civil war.

[brigadista]

And what does that have to do with anything? Would it make a difference if I had ''Committed User'' or ''Marxist-Leninist'' or even ''Irish Republicanism Is A Joke'' under my name? No it wouldn't, the arguments of you ''Republicans'' are pretty weak, you really only attack me or push my arguments to the side as ''pointless'', your vanity blinds you, until you drop this extreme nationalism none of you can really claim ''to be for the working class''.

do you know what it means?

[We Shall Rise Again]

The Republican movement is a rather large waste of working class effort. A united working class in Ireland and the UK would be much stronger than the nationalistic IRA, and Connolly types.


Nonsense, the republican movement has been the most progressive force in Irish History.


The conflict in Ireland is the class conflict. british Imperalism has raped Ieland for hundreds of years and has divided the working class through rasing sectarian tensions.

Socialist republicanism is the method to over come sectarianism and unite the working class. Socialist republicans are also the only groups in ireland making attempts to unite the working class.

The connection to britain must be broken on the road to socialism in Ireland.

Have a look at eirigi.org to get a better understanding of how republicanism is a progressive force.

éirígí is a new socialist republican organisation that puts the class struggle at the core of resolving the colonial/ imperialist conquest in Ireland.

[Invader Zim]

The conflict in Ireland is the class conflict.

Is it? It strikes me as the precise opposite, the struggle to replace one ruling class with ruling class.

It might be progressive, in that the replacement ruling class won't be quite so reactionary. But it does not bring the working classes of either Ireland or Britain closer to stateless and classless society. In fact I suggest that it probably makes that goal even more distant.

[Arm Cathartha na hÉireann]

I didn't argue that. Go back and read my reply again.

Your right i did miss read that, apologies. Although i still dont agree with the point.The working class was already divided in the north of Ireland so i dont see how republican groups who sought to remove the main apparatus of the division can be blamed for the divison its self.

Again i return to the point, what was the alternative? Dialogue would not have worked and while i agree a united working class overthrowing British rule in Ireland would be ideal, i dont relisiticaly see how it can be carried out and i havnt seen anyone on here make suggestions to how they can unite the working class in the north whilist its still under british rule.

[Magdalen]

The point is to show the argument of the Republicans, that internationalism is not a primary part of a Marxist/socialist movement, when it indeed is.

To quote Engels from way back in 1872, when he was arguing against the British members of the First International who opposed the formation of a separate Irish organisation: 'If members of a conquering nation called upon the nation they had conquered and continued to hold down to forget their specific nationality and position, to "sink national differences" and so forth, that was not Internationalism, it was nothing else but preaching to them submission to the yoke, and attempting to justify and perpetuate the dominion of the conqueror under the cloak of Internationalism.' (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1872/irish-section.htm)

[manic expression]

And the problem there is that it leads to a situation where people seriously consider the old expression that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and begin to confuse it with being a maxim. To bring this back to Ireland, the same occured during WW2 where elements of the Republican movement collaborated with the Nazis.
The Nazis were imperialist, therefore that was no anti-imperialist stance.


The fact is Ghadaffi's regime was not one to be championed by the left, regardless of the fact that the Western powers were drawn into the Libyan civil war.
And how many times must we remind you that Gaddafi's regime was never championed in its entirety...however, there was solidarity with all Libyans who stood against imperialism.

And spare me your "poor imperialism was drawn into something it didn't want to do" spiel because it's ridiculous.

[We Shall Rise Again]

Is it? It strikes me as the precise opposite, the struggle to replace one ruling class with ruling class.

It might be progressive, in that the replacement ruling class won't be quite so reactionary. But it does not bring the working classes of either Ireland or Britain closer to stateless and classless society. In fact I suggest that it probably makes that goal even more distant.


Socialists republicans in Ireland do not aim to meerly change the ruling class as you claim, we aim to bring the working class into control of society.

The English working class can not truly be free so long as they allow British governments occuppy Ireland, Scotland wales, cornewall etc.

The only way there can be co-operation between the working class of these islands is what Connolly called 'A free federation of free peoples'.

British imperialism must be removed from Ireland before socialism can flourish,

Therefore the most pressing matter for socialists is the republican struggle.

[TheGeekySocialist]

tbh I think the history of British imperialism in Ireland is one of the most repulsive things about the empire, read up on Cromwell's conquest of Ireland and the potato famine, how anyone could ever support such actions is beyond me.

as with most settler colonial situations, the modern conflict there is perversely complex in comparison to how it was historically, in part I think a United Ireland is something the Left should support though, arguments against doing so seem far to akin to the arguments put forward in defence of Israel...

[CommieTroll]

do you know what it means?

Of course I do, why would I put it there if I didn't know what it means

[Vanguard1917]

Nationalists where calling for the IRA to come and defend them but the leadership had become very Marxist and where unwilling to take action.

The problem wasn't that the leadership had 'become very Marxist', but that it had come more and more under the influence of British Communist Party Stalinists who rejected armed struggle against the oppressor and called for a focus towards electoral politics at a time of increased violence against the nationalist community.

[CommieTroll]

OK, understood. I still don't agree at all...the anti-imperialist line doesn't say that Gaddafi wasn't autocratic, it's that he came to stand against imperialism and for the self-determination of Libya. We don't have to agree or endorse everything a figure does to recognize that s/he was a force against imperialism and thus a force that had a progressive role to play in a certain instance.

What anti-imperialists look to is the defeat of imperialism by non-imperialist forces. Oftentimes, that's the most immediate goal.


Supporting the working class is synonymous with supporting its right to not be enslaved by imperialism. Gaddafi was an autocrat, and one who did oversee a capitalist regime, but imperialist domination over Libya is a step backward for the masses of Libya.

In other words, recognizing the progressive role of Iraq's struggle against the US imperialist invasion is not the same as saying Saddam was a wonderful leader...it's just that in his role as a figure against imperialism, he did stand for the progress of the Iraqi masses.

The immeasurable suffering of the Iraqi people since the invasion (which was piled on top of the suffering caused by the imperialist embargoes) is proof that had Gaddafi been victorious over the forces of imperialism, it would have been beneficial to the masses of Libya. Ignore history at your own peril.

PS please show me where the workers of Libya "starved". Thanks.

It doesn't matter, Gaddafi & Saddam aren't Marxists so I don't see why I or anyone else on this forum need to support their ''great anti-imperialist struggle'', and no, they're not even Socialists either, Red fascists maybe? Like I've said before, you's will support any tyrant for anti-imperialism and mostly on this form it just means anti-american

[manic expression]

It doesn't matter, Gaddafi & Saddam aren't Marxists so I don't see why I or anyone else on this forum need to support their ''great anti-imperialist struggle'', and no, they're not even Socialists either, Red fascists maybe? Like I've said before, you's will support any tyrant for anti-imperialism and mostly on this form it just means anti-american
Don't be sectarian...Marxists support those who stand for progress, not just those who've happened to read Marx.

And it's not about being anti-American, it's about being anti-imperialist. Don't the make the old mistake of conflating America with the imperialist state, it's patently un-Marxist.

[CommieTroll]

Don't be sectarian...Marxists support those who stand for progress, not just those who've happened to read Marx.

And it's not about being anti-American, it's about being anti-imperialist. Don't the make the old mistake of conflating America with the imperialist state, it's patently un-Marxist.

Yea, you accuse me of being un-Marxist, I was accusing the armchair republicans on thus forum of everything you just accused me of. You failed to see my point,

[Die Rote Fahne]

Oh, I know it was a joke...the only question was whether you did or not. Obviously not.


Ah, yes...the national liberation of Ireland from imperialism is "time wasted". I wonder what Marx would have to say (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1867/irish-speech.htm) about that....

The Irish question is therefore not simply a question of nationality, but a question of land and existence. Ruin or revolution is the watchword; all the Irish are convinced that if anything is to happen at all it must happen quickly. The English should demand separation and leave it to the Irish themselves to decide the question of landownership. Everything else would be useless.

So have fun with your cute little jokes when Marx said you're wrong about 150 years ago.
First off. Marx is not infallible. Don't make him out to be perfect. He was also a homophobe, shall we start hating gays just cause he did?

As you said, that was 150 years ago. Ireland now is not Ireland 150 years ago, its not even Ireland 10 or 20 years ago.

Do tell me what oppression the Irish face from the British today?


Except nationalism need not be divisive. In the context of the Irish struggle for liberation, the only way it's been "divisive" is by dividing progressive workers against Orange cronies for British imperialism. In other respects, it's achieved not only self-determination for the majority of Ireland but the vital self-defense of Irish workers in the occupied counties.
Or by detracting the struggle against capital. How aobut the non-nationalist socialists in Ireland, who's primary goal is the emancipation of the working class?


Nice to see you crying crocodile tears for your Unionist friends instead of figuring out what's best for the Irish working class. Poor poor Irish folk. Getting brutalized by the Queens knights and soldiers this very minute.


Actually no, it probably wouldn't be, because Irish nationalism is indeed internationalist. How else do you explain the murals commemorating the struggles of our Palestinian sisters and brothers, or indeed those in support of Blacks in the United States? Too bad you forgot that...regardless, Irish anti-imperialism is progressive in that it seeks the self-determination of the Irish nation. How is it internationalist, when you are concerned first and foremost with your own emancipation from a nation, rather than your classes emancipation from capital?


Since you're more concerned for the feelings of Loyalists than you are for the advancement of the masses of Ireland...it makes sense you wouldn't even be able to put these plain facts together.
Strawman.


You can bash them for many things, but none of those things would be opposition to imperialism. Uhhh....what?


But thanks a bunch for admitting that your comparison is worthless.
:crying:

[manic expression]

Yea, you accuse me of being un-Marxist, I was accusing the armchair republicans on thus forum of everything you just accused me of. You failed to see my point,
Except the Republican Socialist members of this forum stand for Marxism, which entails with it national liberation.


First off. Marx is not infallible. Don't make him out to be perfect. He was also a homophobe, shall we start hating gays just cause he did?

As you said, that was 150 years ago. Ireland now is not Ireland 150 years ago, its not even Ireland 10 or 20 years ago.

Do tell me what oppression the Irish face from the British today?
I can explain quite easily why Marx was wrong for whatever homophobic ideas he held. However, you won't be able to tell us why Irish national liberation is a bad thing. You've already failed to do so.

Six counties of Ireland are presently occupied by British imperialism. That's how the Irish face oppression from the British.


Or by detracting the struggle against capital. How aobut the non-nationalist socialists in Ireland, who's primary goal is the emancipation of the working class?
How does it "detract" from the struggle against capital? The British withdrawal from most of Ireland was a defeat for capital and a victory for the masses of Ireland. Emancipation of the working class from capitalism and the emancipation of the Irish nation from imperialism are one in the same.


Poor poor Irish folk. Getting brutalized by the Queens knights and soldiers this very minute.
They are under the heel of the Queen's soldiers this very minute, yes. I wonder why you mock that instead of pinpointing the causes of that injustice.


How is it internationalist, when you are concerned first and foremost with your own emancipation from a nation, rather than your classes emancipation from capital?
a.) Because national liberation is a progressive step for all peoples. Without removing the menace of imperialism, working-class revolution is practically far more difficult.

b.) It's internationalist because a great many Republicans recognized that their struggle for national liberation was connected fully with the struggles of the masses of many nations.


Strawman.
Not really. You were fretting a great deal over the hurt feelings of Orange Unionists upthread, saying that Irish Republicanism is "divisive". Well, the only way you could think it's so divisive is if you count anti-Irish Loyalists among your friends. Your stubborn opposition to Irish liberation would suggest this.


Uhhh....what?
You can bash them for many things, but none of those things would be opposition to imperialism.

The meaning is quite clear.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Except the Republican Socialist members of this forum stand for Marxism, which entails with it national liberation.


I can explain quite easily why Marx was wrong for whatever homophobic ideas he held. However, you won't be able to tell us why Irish national liberation is a bad thing. You've already failed to do so.

Six counties of Ireland are presently occupied by British imperialism. That's how the Irish face oppression from the British.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/index.htm

Can do a much better job than me using anecdotes from it.


How does it "detract" from the struggle against capital? The British withdrawal from most of Ireland was a defeat for capital and a victory for the masses of Ireland. Emancipation of the working class from capitalism and the emancipation of the Irish nation from imperialism are one in the same. No it's not. The struggle against capital, involving a united working class across all of GB (Ireland included in GB) stand a much better chance than a divided working class. Not to mention the time wasted focusing on independence. The only way to end imperialism, is to end capitalism.

Do you believe that, honestly, Ireland can achieve socialism by gaining Independence? The majority of Republicans, NOT ON THIS SITE, are utopians.


They are under the heel of the Queen's soldiers this very minute, yes. I wonder why you mock that instead of pinpointing the causes of that injustice. Just as the British citizen is under the heel of the Queen's soldiers? But wait, they're British, we can ignore them.



a.) Because national liberation is a progressive step for all peoples. Without removing the menace of imperialism, working-class revolution is practically far more difficult.

b.) It's internationalist because a great many Republicans recognized that their struggle for national liberation was connected fully with the struggles of the masses of many nations.The idea that the existence of British Imperialism derives it's inner strength or it's external significance from the subjugation of Ireland is false.

"Let us take now the first point of the resolution. “The subjugation of one nation by another,” we read, “can serve only the interests of capitalists and despots, while for working people in both oppressed and oppressor nation it is equally pernicious ...” On the basis of this proposition the independence of Poland is supposed to become an imperative demand of the proletariat. Here we have one of those great truths, so great, in fact, as to be one of the greatest of commonplaces, and as such it can lead to no practical conclusions whatsoever. If, from the assertion that the subjugation of one nation by another is in the interests of capitalists and despots, it is therefore concluded that all annexations are unjust or can be eliminated within the capitalist system, then this we hold to be absurd, for it makes no allowance for the basic principles of the existing order...

In reference to Poland and the Dutch struggles for independence "...the proletariat is supposed to eliminate war and annexations under capitalism without eliminating capitalism itself, though both, in fact, are part of the very essence of capitalism....

The adoption of the social-patriotic resolution would establish an important precedent for the socialist movement in other countries. What is good for one is purchased cheaply by the other. If the national liberation of Poland is elevated to a political goal of the international proletariat, why not also the liberation of Czechoslovakia, Ireland, and Alsace-Lorraine? All these objectives are equally utopian, and are no less justified than the liberation of Poland. The liberation of Alsace-Lorraine, in particular, would be far more important for the international proletariat, and far more likely at that; behind Alsace-Lorraine stand four million French bayonets, and in questions of bourgeois annexations, bayonets carry more weight than moralistic demonstrations. And if the Poles in the three partitioned sectors organize themselves along nationalist lines for the liberation of Poland, why should the other nationalities in Austria not also do the same, why should the Alsatians not organize themselves with the French? In a word, the door would be opened wide to national struggles and nationalist organizations. Rather than a working class organized in accordance with political realities, there would be an espousal of organization along national lines, which often goes astray from the start. Instead of political programs, nationalist programs would be drawn up. Instead of a coherent political struggle of the proletariat in every country, its disintegration through a series of fruitless national struggles would be virtually assured." - Rosa Luxemburg, The Polish Question at the International Congress in London, here. (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1896/07/polish-question.htm)


Not really. You were fretting a great deal over the hurt feelings of Orange Unionists upthread, saying that Irish Republicanism is "divisive". Well, the only way you could think it's so divisive is if you count anti-Irish Loyalists among your friends. Your stubborn opposition to Irish liberation would suggest this.

You can bash them for many things, but none of those things would be opposition to imperialism.

The meaning is quite clear.Yes, I am an Orange Unionist through and through. I'm wondering where I did bash it.

In your mind there are only 3 people in Ireland:
Orange Unionists, Irish Republicans and anti-Irish Loyalists. :thumbup1:

[freepalestine]

How does it "detract" from the struggle against capital? The British withdrawal from most of Ireland was a defeat for capital and a victory for the masses of Ireland. Emancipation of the working class from capitalism and the emancipation of the Irish nation from imperialism are one in the same.
. it triggered the beginning of the end for british imperialism and colonialism elsewhere

[Invader Zim]

The Nazis were imperialist, therefore that was no anti-imperialist stance.

Of course it was. It was a stance born of opposition to British imperialism in Ireland. And, if you're going to make that argument, it can hardly be argued that Ghadaffi's regime did not have ambitions beyond Libya's borders.


there was solidarity with all Libyans who stood against imperialism.

Regardless of their politics and actions?



And spare me your "poor imperialism was drawn into something it didn't want to do" spiel because it's ridiculous.

Are you implying that I actually wrote the sentence you have placed in inverted commas? Or is it meant to be a parody? Do you reject the basic idea that structuralism is a historical agent, and are trying to be facetious? I'm geniously curious.

Also, you are very uptight and hostile. You should relax more.

[CommieTroll]

it triggered the beginning of the end for british imperialism and colonialism elsewhere

Even though it split the country in two and triggered a bloody civil war, things like that make me wonder how that coward de Valera became Taoiseach.
I'm not against the emancipation of Northern Ireland, I do support it within reason but you can't forget about the orange working class who have to fight Capitalism just as much as Irish nationalists.

[manic expression]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/index.htm

Can do a much better job than me using anecdotes from it.
So you're admitting that your line on this disagrees squarely with Marx's own words. Fine with me.


No it's not. The struggle against capital, involving a united working class across all of GB (Ireland included in GB) stand a much better chance than a divided working class. Not to mention the time wasted focusing on independence. The only way to end imperialism, is to end capitalism.
Since you keep ignoring the words of Engels:

If members of a conquering nation called upon the nation they had conquered and continued to hold down to forget their specific nationality and position, to “sink national differences” and so forth, that was not Internationalism, it was nothing else but preaching to them submission to the yoke, and attempting to justify and to perpetuate the dominion of the conqueror under the cloak of Internationalism.

Again, we see how your anti-Irish line is also anti-Marxist garbage.


Do you believe that, honestly, Ireland can achieve socialism by gaining Independence? The majority of Republicans, NOT ON THIS SITE, are utopians.
Ireland can achieve socialism far more readily with independence. The defeat of imperialism opens up more opportunities for workers to organize and oppose capitalism. You're a utopian for thinking that national liberation isn't needed for working-class liberation.


Just as the British citizen is under the heel of the Queen's soldiers? But wait, they're British, we can ignore them.
Are you saying the two situations are exactly the same? Speak plainly for once.


The idea that the existence of British Imperialism derives it's inner strength or it's external significance from the subjugation of Ireland is false.
Except I didn't say that, so you're wrong again. Thanks for playing, better luck next time! :laugh:


The adoption of the social-patriotic resolution would establish an important precedent for the socialist movement in other countries. What is good for one is purchased cheaply by the other. If the national liberation of Poland is elevated to a political goal of the international proletariat, why not also the liberation of Czechoslovakia, Ireland, and Alsace-Lorraine? All these objectives are equally utopian, and are no less justified than the liberation of Poland. The liberation of Alsace-Lorraine, in particular, would be far more important for the international proletariat, and far more likely at that; behind Alsace-Lorraine stand four million French bayonets, and in questions of bourgeois annexations, bayonets carry more weight than moralistic demonstrations. And if the Poles in the three partitioned sectors organize themselves along nationalist lines for the liberation of Poland, why should the other nationalities in Austria not also do the same, why should the Alsatians not organize themselves with the French? In a word, the door would be opened wide to national struggles and nationalist organizations. Rather than a working class organized in accordance with political realities, there would be an espousal of organization along national lines, which often goes astray from the start. Instead of political programs, nationalist programs would be drawn up. Instead of a coherent political struggle of the proletariat in every country, its disintegration through a series of fruitless national struggles would be virtually assured." - Rosa Luxemburg, The Polish Question at the International Congress in London, here. (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1896/07/polish-question.htm)
Unfortunately, Rosa never explains why national liberation is "utopian", or why it would "go astray from the start". The assertion that national liberation is not in accordance with political realities is false, because the age of imperialism has made it an important aspect to oppress and subjugate nations for profit. The assertion that nationalist programs would subsume political ones is also incorrect, seeing as leaders of Irish Republican Socialism have been putting forth principled political programs for decades. The assertion that national liberation is "fruitless" is again incorrect, for the defeat of imperialism in one area of the world is a victory for the workers worldwide. In addition, workers are more effectively able to organize and pursue their interests if they are not under the heel of imperialist occupation (Iraq is a good example of this).

Back to the drawing board you go.


Yes, I am an Orange Unionist through and through. I'm wondering where I did bash it.
You do seem to care more about the hurt feelings of Unionists than you do for the progress of Irish workers, so keep the jokes coming.


In your mind there are only 3 people in Ireland:
Orange Unionists, Irish Republicans and anti-Irish Loyalists. :thumbup1:
In your warped mind, Ireland shouldn't exist. :lol:

[Invader Zim]

The English working class can not truly be free so long as they allow British governments occuppy Ireland, Scotland wales, cornewall etc.

So, you actually mean the English government? And you are more than pushing the case with Cornwall and indeed, to a lesser extent, Wales.

[CommieTroll]

Except the Republican Socialist members of this forum stand for Marxism, which entails with it national liberation.

If they stood for Marxism they wouldn't be bitterly opposed to solidarity with the Unionist working class to end British rule, my point from the very beginning was that the 32CSM are a militant, sectarian hate group that divide the working class but no, you ''Republicans'' won't listen. I DO support the emancipation of Northern Ireland but at this current moment in time it's economically impossible. I'm against the 32CSM and its supporters here because they are the un-Marxist, sectarian ones, and just because I think the Unionist proletariat needs to be taken into consideration doesn't mean I'm a ''west brit'' as some people here so elegantly put it. The orange working class don't want to live in a Catholic dominated theocracy and who can't share that opinion? British rule has to be ended in Ireland through the fight against Capital, not blind nationalism

[manic expression]

Of course it was. It was a stance born of opposition to British imperialism in Ireland. And, if you're going to make that argument, it can hardly be argued that Ghadaffi's regime did not have ambitions beyond Libya's borders.
Look, the comparisons are getting absurd. First al Qaeda/the Taliban and now Adolf Hitler? Gaddafi is quite the canvass.

The point is that Gaddafi's regime was not fascist...not even close, and it certainly wasn't imperialist. Imperialism, we should note, is not just "ambitions beyond one's borders", or else every communist on earth would be an imperialist. Imperialism has to do with monopoly capitalism, not just with sending soldiers over this or that border.


Regardless of their politics and actions?
Which politics? Which actions?


Are you implying that I actually wrote the sentence you have placed in inverted commas? Or is it meant to be a parody? Do you reject the basic idea that structuralism is a historical agent, and are trying to be facetious? I'm geniously curious.
It's a summation of an argument I've seen here before. I should have written "don't give me the 'poor imperialism...'". Anyway, imperialism wanted to go into Libya because it wanted to take out Gaddafi because it wanted complete control over Libya, its oil reserves and strategic value (bordering both Tunisia and Egypt, no less).


Also, you are very uptight and hostile. You should relax more.
Well, when the We Hate Ireland Brigade is on the march, it's easy to get hostile. Not that you're part of it, but they're having a ball on this thread.

[CommieTroll]

it seems that the unionist working class there sided with the ruling class and imperiaism

I'm fully aware of that, they did so because it was in their best interests, why do you think workers join trade unions?
I know that a majority of Unionists are pretty reactionary but they need to be taught class consciousness and that is the job of the vanguard party, not violent nationalists like the 32CSM.

[manic expression]

If they stood for Marxism they wouldn't be bitterly opposed to solidarity with the Unionist working class to end British rule, my point from the very beginning was that the 32CSM are a militant, sectarian hate group that divide the working class but no, you ''Republicans'' won't listen. I DO support the emancipation of Northern Ireland but at this current moment in time it's economically impossible. I'm against the 32CSM and its supporters here because they are the un-Marxist, sectarian ones, and just because I think the Unionist proletariat needs to be taken into consideration doesn't mean I'm a ''west brit'' as some people here so elegantly put it. The orange working class don't want to live in a Catholic dominated theocracy and who can't share that opinion? British rule has to be ended in Ireland through the fight against Capital, not blind nationalism
Some workers are reactionary. Socialists can't work with anyone and everyone who's part of the working class because in some cases it's not even feasible. Irish Socialist Republicans have made it quite clear that they're not against Protestantism or Protestant workers...it's a matter of political stance: if someone is loyal to London and all the capitalists there, then how can progressives work with someone who holds such a position?

I agree that capital must be destroyed in Ireland, but achieving self-determination helps that struggle. Remember, it was only after Cuba had thrown off the chains of Spanish colonialism that it could overthrow capitalism.

[We Shall Rise Again]

So, you actually mean the English government? And you are more than pushing the case with Cornwall and indeed, to a lesser extent, Wales.

The British Imperial presence is one of the most fundamental barriers to socialism in each country i mentioned.

successful national liberation struggles in the said countrys would greatly advance them on the road to socialism.

[CommieTroll]

Some workers are reactionary. Socialists can't work with anyone and everyone who's part of the working class because in some cases it's not even feasible. Irish Socialist Republicans have made it quite clear that they're not against Protestantism or Protestant workers...it's a matter of political stance: if someone is loyal to London and all the capitalists there, then how can progressives work with someone who holds such a position?

I agree that capital must be destroyed in Ireland, but achieving self-determination helps that struggle. Remember, it was only after Cuba had thrown off the chains of Spanish colonialism that it could overthrow capitalism.

Yes, in Republicans' eyes it was never about a religious stance, many famous Irish Republicans were protestants, Robert Emmet, Wolfe Tone, Sam Maguire and WB Yeats to name a few. I know reactionary workers align themselves with the Capitalists in London but isn't that what we are all fighting against?
ANY worker can obtain class consciousness and that is how British Imperialism will end in Ireland, not a nationalist cause that alienates thousands of workers in the north

[thesadmafioso]

Some workers are reactionary. Socialists can't work with anyone and everyone who's part of the working class because in some cases it's not even feasible. Irish Socialist Republicans have made it quite clear that they're not against Protestantism or Protestant workers...it's a matter of political stance: if someone is loyal to London and all the capitalists there, then how can progressives work with someone who holds such a position?

I agree that capital must be destroyed in Ireland, but achieving self-determination helps that struggle. Remember, it was only after Cuba had thrown off the chains of Spanish colonialism that it could overthrow capitalism.

National determination is really an outmoded mechanism of historical development, it was progressive when it was being used to dismantle the aristocratic structures of monarchism, but we are in a historical stage of society well beyond the need for now reactionary thought and methodology.

There is a clear difference between securing self determination for the workers of a region and self determination for the sheer sake of nationalism. The basis of this struggle is in the idealism of the bourgeois, it is based upon the theory of the nation rather than the theory of class struggle. If anyone is not adhering to the functions of Marxist theory here, I would propose that it is all actuality yourself.

[Die Rote Fahne]

So you're admitting that your line on this disagrees squarely with Marx's own words. Fine with me.
Yes, in some instances I disagree with Marx and Engels' analyses of certain things. I fail to see how that qualifies me as an anti-Marxist, but sure, I'll bite. So I'm in the camp of anti-Marxists, who disagree with some things Marx and Engels have said, alongside Lenin and Luxemburg...I'm doing alright.


Ireland can achieve socialism far more readily with independence. The defeat of imperialism opens up more opportunities for workers to organize and oppose capitalism. You're a utopian for thinking that national liberation isn't needed for working-class liberation. Maybe it can, but it ignores the HUGE amount of time spent striving for independence, and the damage that the ideology of bourgeois nationalism does to the worker that believes it.



Are you saying the two situations are exactly the same? Speak plainly for once. Explain to me, in detail, how the plight of the British worker and the Irish worker are not the same? Because on a piece of paper it says that Ireland is a part of Great Britain?

Are the Irish denied privileges, are the treated as second class citizens by everyone else, and by institutions?



Except I didn't say that, so you're wrong again. Thanks for playing, better luck next time! :laugh:
Well, you ignore a serious point. That, whilst you claim anti-imperialism, you do not wish to defeat imperialism in total. You merely wish to defeat imperialism within Irish borders, and leave the other nations to their own accords.

Why not struggle against Israeli imperialism? Surely, there are more important situations, as one of the Luxemburg quotes had said, that would be a bigger push for working class emancipation/imperialist defeat than Irish independence? Why are you nationalists not struggling for that first?


Unfortunately, Rosa never explains why national liberation is "utopian", or why it would "go astray from the start". The assertion that national liberation is not in accordance with political realities is false, because the age of imperialism has made it an important aspect to oppress and subjugate nations for profit. The assertion that nationalist programs would subsume political ones is also incorrect, seeing as leaders of Irish Republican Socialism have been putting forth principled political programs for decades. The assertion that national liberation is "fruitless" is again incorrect, for the defeat of imperialism in one area of the world is a victory for the workers worldwide. In addition, workers are more effectively able to organize and pursue their interests if they are not under the heel of imperialist occupation (Iraq is a good example of this).

Back to the drawing board you go.
Read the whole of the Polish Question, and read the whole of The National Question.

Also, answer my question above, why not fight against a more pertinent imperialism in the world, such as Israeli or American?


You do seem to care more about the hurt feelings of Unionists than you do for the progress of Irish workers, so keep the jokes coming.
I care for the progress of all workers. Canadian, American, Irish, British, Uzbek, Chinese, Congolese, etc. The only way to defeat British Imperialism, is to first defeat capitalism, as Imperialism is the inevitable side effect of capital.


In your warped mind, Ireland shouldn't exist. :lol:
Yes, wipe Ireland off the map!:rolleyes:

[Irish Left]

I'm not in any group yet, mostly down to the fact that the Irish left are unorganized and make little difference. Stupid flame wars like this achieve and pointless conflicts like those condoned by the contos and the glorious 32CSM divide the working class, nothing more. You think you morons can ''take on imperialism by standing around and shouting ''free Derry''?

Aye sure they stand around shouting free derry lol.

You keep up the great work, you will bring a revolution from behind your computer.

[manic expression]

Yes, in some instances I disagree with Marx and Engels' analyses of certain things. I fail to see how that qualifies me as an anti-Marxist, but sure, I'll bite. So I'm in the camp of anti-Marxists, who disagree with some things Marx and Engels have said, alongside Lenin and Luxemburg...I'm doing alright.
Unlike those two, you can't explain why you disagree with the propositions of Marx and Engels. Aside from a mention of homophobia we have nothing.


Maybe it can, but it ignores the HUGE amount of time spent striving for independence, and the damage that the ideology of bourgeois nationalism does to the worker that believes it.
If it is progressive, then it's not a waste of time by any means (to the contrary, it means it's time well spent). And there is little indication of what you mean by "damage" of "bourgeois nationalism".


Explain to me, in detail, how the plight of the British worker and the Irish worker are not the same? Because on a piece of paper it says that Ireland is a part of Great Britain?

Are the Irish denied privileges, are the treated as second class citizens by everyone else, and by institutions?
It is different because the British occupation of Ireland was put in force by direct military occupation, because Irish workers in the occupied counties are denied self-determination as a people (coincidentally, this is shared by other nationalities within the UK), because the occupied counties are politically and functionally separated from the rest of Ireland.


Well, you ignore a serious point. That, whilst you claim anti-imperialism, you do not wish to defeat imperialism in total. You merely wish to defeat imperialism within Irish borders, and leave the other nations to their own accords.

Why not struggle against Israeli imperialism? Surely, there are more important situations, as one of the Luxemburg quotes had said, that would be a bigger push for working class emancipation/imperialist defeat than Irish independence? Why are you nationalists not struggling for that first?
No, you're extrapolating instead of analyzing. The defeat of British imperialism in Ireland would be a victory for the workers of all countries, so it is not just about defeating imperialism within Irish borders but everywhere imperialism happens to exist. That's why Irish Republicans stand with their sisters and brothers fighting for their liberation in Palestine.


Read the whole of the Polish Question, and read the whole of The National Question.

Also, answer my question above, why not fight against a more pertinent imperialism in the world, such as Israeli or American?
BS. I pointed out the clear faults of your foundation and you dance around it. Typical.

To the workers of Ireland, British imperialism is most immediate, but a defeat to British imperialism there would be a defeat of Israeli and American imperialism as well.


I care for the progress of all workers. Canadian, American, Irish, British, Uzbek, Chinese, Congolese, etc. The only way to defeat British Imperialism, is to first defeat capitalism, as Imperialism is the inevitable side effect of capital.
Wrong. Imperialism can suffer defeats through national liberation struggles. That's why American imperialism was so crucially defeated at the Bay of Pigs.


Yes, wipe Ireland off the map!:rolleyes:
If national struggles don't matter, why would you oppose that?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Unlike those two, you can't explain why you disagree with the propositions of Marx and Engels. Aside from a mention of homophobia we have nothing. Is this an inquisition, or a debate on Irish nationalism?



If it is progressive, then it's not a waste of time by any means (to the contrary, it means it's time well spent). And there is little indication of what you mean by "damage" of "bourgeois nationalism". For the most part, it isn't progressive. Want to know what is? Socialist revolution.



It is different because the British occupation of Ireland was put in force by direct military occupation, because Irish workers in the occupied counties are denied self-determination as a people (coincidentally, this is shared by other nationalities within the UK), because the occupied counties are politically and functionally separated from the rest of Ireland. Okay, so, you want to claim oppression whilst Palestinians are starving due to an Israeli blockade? Whilst Iraqi children are born with cancer thanks to American depleted uranium weaponry?



No, you're extrapolating instead of analyzing. The defeat of British imperialism in Ireland would be a victory for the workers of all countries, so it is not just about defeating imperialism within Irish borders but everywhere imperialism happens to exist. That's why Irish Republicans stand with their sisters and brothers fighting for their liberation in Palestine. I'm arguing that the victory is small in comparison to a united socialist revolution in Great Britain. Especially when the efforts of the nationalists are more concerned with their own plight against paper imperialism, and not on the imperialism of war.

If you truly stand with the Palestinians, and believe their independence would harm Imperialism more than Irish Independence, then why aren't you a Palestinian nationalist first?



BS. I pointed out the clear faults of your foundation and you dance around it. Typical.

To the workers of Ireland, British imperialism is most immediate, but a defeat to British imperialism there would be a defeat of Israeli and American imperialism as well. And I once again emphasize the anti-internationalist point.



Wrong. Imperialism can suffer defeats through national liberation struggles. That's why American imperialism was so crucially defeated at the Bay of Pigs. Yes, say that to Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya, Grenada, Chile, Nicaragua, etc.

Bay of Pigs wasn't a national liberation struggle.


If national struggles don't matter, why would you oppose that?Class struggle matters.

[manic expression]

Is this an inquisition, or a debate on Irish nationalism?
I'm asking you why you disagree with Marx and Engels' views on Irish national liberation. It's only a debate if you provide some reasoning for this...but you haven't, probably because you can't.


For the most part, it isn't progressive. Want to know what is? Socialist revolution.What "most part"? The part of defeating imperialism and opening up greater opportunities for working-class organization? The part where socialist revolution is made more possible?


Okay, so, you want to claim oppression whilst Palestinians are starving due to an Israeli blockade? Whilst Iraqi children are born with cancer thanks to American depleted uranium weaponry?Ah, so only some national liberation struggles are important while others are not. Interesting logic.


I'm arguing that the victory is small in comparison to a united socialist revolution in Great Britain. Especially when the efforts of the nationalists are more concerned with their own plight against paper imperialism, and not on the imperialism of war.

If you truly stand with the Palestinians, and believe their independence would harm Imperialism more than Irish Independence, then why aren't you a Palestinian nationalist first?And who here argued that a socialist revolution throughout "Great Britain" (funny how you don't object to British imperialism occupying Ireland) would be a lesser victory than Irish national liberation? No one...partially because a working-class revolution would entail without reservation Irish national liberation.

Standing with the Palestinians doesn't mean I think their independence is somehow better than Irish independence. I stand with the Palestinians because I'm an internationalist. Since you didn't notice, this isn't the Olympics, you don't make a list of which nations you want to see liberated from imperialism first. It's about national liberation for all nations.


And I once again emphasize the anti-internationalist point.You emphasize nothing except for your anti-Irish nonsense.


Yes, say that to Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya, Grenada, Chile, Nicaragua, etc.Which is why we need more defeats of imperialism...something you aren't in support of because you aren't a progressive.


Bay of Pigs wasn't a national liberation struggle.Of course it was, it guaranteed the national self-determination of Cuba against the attempts of US imperialism.


Class struggle matters.Which is why defeating imperialism matters.

[CommieTroll]

Aye sure they stand around shouting free derry lol.

You keep up the great work, you will bring a revolution from behind your computer.

No problem, it's pretty cozy here anyway. Have fun contributing to an organization that divides the working class even more

[Die Rote Fahne]

I'm asking you why you disagree with Marx and Engels' views on Irish national liberation. It's only a debate if you provide some reasoning for this...but you haven't, probably because you can't. It's not relevant to the debate. You want my reasoning for my disagreeing with Marx, and I've given it to you through my replies to your other replies. This one point of me telling you why I disagree with Marx is irrelevant to the points I'm making which tell you why.


What "most part"? The part of defeating imperialism and opening up greater opportunities for working-class organization? The part where socialist revolution is made more possible? Even right-wingers have combated and fought imperialism. However, usually when they do it, it is against an actively oppressive force. Not a force that is oppressive because Ireland is a part of GB on a piece of paper.

So, what opportunities do the Irish not have for fighting against capitalism?


Ah, so only some national liberation struggles are important while others are not. Interesting logic. Not my point, nor do i think that. My point is that, if you believe combating imperialism is important/the most important, you have to argue why you believe in defeating it in Ireland first.


And who here argued that a socialist revolution throughout "Great Britain" (funny how you don't object to British imperialism occupying Ireland) would be a lesser victory than Irish national liberation? No one...partially because a working-class revolution would entail without reservation Irish national liberation. Whether I "object" to it or not is irrelevant to my position on National Liberation movements.

You also, in this, agree with me that "a working-class revolution would entail...Irish national liberation". So, why not fight for the working-class revolution, rather than first and foremost independence?


Standing with the Palestinians doesn't mean I think their independence is somehow better than Irish independence. I stand with the Palestinians because I'm an internationalist. Since you didn't notice, this isn't the Olympics, you don't make a list of which nations you want to see liberated from imperialism first. It's about national liberation for all nations.I'm not saying whether you believe their independence is more important, but which "defeat of imperialism" would be more important. You know, since you are claiming to be concerned with imperialism.


You emphasize nothing except for your anti-Irish nonsense. Clearly.


Which is why we need more defeats of imperialism...something you aren't in support of because you aren't a progressive.:lol: So you support Gaddaffi, Al Qaeda, the Taliban? Victories for them would be defeats for imperialism.


Of course it was, it guaranteed the national self-determination of Cuba against the attempts of US imperialism. Perhaps, it does not, however, make it a struggle for national liberation. The nation had it's independence, the invasion was not for US occupation, but US supported counter-revolution.


Which is why defeating imperialism matters.You just said that national struggles mattered. Which sort of suggests you believe in national struggle before class struggle.

Are you aware that you fight for independence alongside fascists, and other capitalists?

[manic expression]

It's not relevant to the debate.
Wrong. It's extremely relevant to the debate. Why do you reject Marx and Engels' support of Irish national liberation?


Even right-wingers have combated and fought imperialism. However, usually when they do it, it is against an actively oppressive force. Not a force that is oppressive because Ireland is a part of GB on a piece of paper.

So, what opportunities do the Irish not have for fighting against capitalism?Your first point means absolutely nothing without a real-world example, as usual. Your second point is quite a silly question...the Irish have plenty of opportunities for fighting capitalism: the recent economic crisis is just an obvious example.


Not my point, nor do i think that. My point is that, if you believe combating imperialism is important/the most important, you have to argue why you believe in defeating it in Ireland first.I never said that, nor did I imply it. It's a matter of opposing imperialism everywhere and supporting oppressed nations in their struggle against that force.


Whether I "object" to it or not is irrelevant to my position on National Liberation movements.

You also, in this, agree with me that "a working-class revolution would entail...Irish national liberation". So, why not fight for the working-class revolution, rather than first and foremost independence?Of course it's relevant...if you don't object to calling Ireland "Great Britain" then surely you have absolutely little concern for the plight of the Irish workers. Secondly, working-class revolution is more feasible if we can defeat imperialism in a given region.


I'm not saying whether you believe their independence is more important, but which "defeat of imperialism" would be more important. You know, since you are claiming to be concerned with imperialism.They would both be important...there's no putting one above the other.


:lol: So you support Gaddaffi, Al Qaeda, the Taliban? Victories for them would be defeats for imperialism.Gaddafi in his fight against NATO imperialism? Yes, I support any and all Libyans who struggle against foreign meddling. The Taliban against NATO in Afghanistan? Well, I support any and all Afghans who struggle against foreign oppression, but the Taliban are the former friends of imperialism and could easily be so again, so it's not up to a clear-cut answer. Al Qaeda? No, not at all, for their victory would lead to no national liberation and thus no progress for workers.


Perhaps, it does not, however, make it a struggle for national liberation. The nation had it's independence, the invasion was not for US occupation, but US supported counter-revolution.Had the Bay of Pigs invasion been successful, there's every indication a US occupation would have followed in some manner. Even if that weren't the case, the defeat of imperialism at the Bay of Pigs was a matter of national liberation because without that victory, Cuba would have been under the thumb of imperialism and the working-class gains made since that point would have been impossible.


You just said that national struggles mattered. Which sort of suggests you believe in national struggle before class struggle.

Are you aware that you fight for independence alongside fascists, and other capitalists?No, it doesn't, because national struggles against imperialism are class struggles. Further, fascists are pro-imperialists, and so no, I don't stand alongside them. Any other false notions you'd like to throw out there?

[thefinalmarch]

Are you aware that you fight for independence alongside fascists, and other capitalists?
The Irish republican socialists' national liberation struggle and any bourgeois Irish national liberation struggles are completely different struggles. Wider struggles of national liberation aren't homogeneous, and the Irish one is no exception to this. There are sections of the movement which are pro-working class, and there bound to be some invariably reactionary sections of the movement. National liberation struggles shouldn't be rejected outright, but they should be analysed on the basis of their class character. Think black nationalism, Palestine, etc. Heck, I thought this was obvious.

Just my two cents.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Wrong. It's extremely relevant to the debate. Why do you reject Marx and Engels' support of Irish national liberation?
Well, since this point is so very very important to you, I'll reiterate one major point to help clarify:

- This is 2011, not 1867. The British imperialism, and situation of Ireland, that Marx was discussing no longer exists, or applies to the situation in Ireland. No more African colonies, India is independent, Britain isn't actively oppressing the Irish. I'm talking about actual oppression, not "boohoo, Ireland is a part of Britain". etc.
- Though, why, you may ask I would disagree with him at the time? I have quoted Luxemburg, I have linked you to The National Question. You can read some Marxist literature, surely.


Your first point means absolutely nothing without a real-world example, as usual. Your second point is quite a silly question...the Irish have plenty of opportunities for fighting capitalism: the recent economic crisis is just an obvious example.
Real world example, the Taliban in Afganistan, Hamas in Palestine.

So, you had the opportunity without independence then?


I never said that, nor did I imply it. It's a matter of opposing imperialism everywhere and supporting oppressed nations in their struggle against that force. So, why is it that you strive primarily for a minor defeat of Imperialism, rather than a large defeat of Imperialism elsewhere?

Well, you do believe in defeating it in Ireland first, or you would be protesting in the streets for X's independence first and foremost.


Of course it's relevant...if you don't object to calling Ireland "Great Britain" then surely you have absolutely little concern for the plight of the Irish workers. Secondly, working-class revolution is more feasible if we can defeat imperialism in a given region. It's the name of it. Whether you like it or not, IRELAND IS A PART OF GREAT BRITAIN.

My concern isn't, as I have said, for the Irish workers. It is for the workers of the world. The "plight" of Irish workers will not end with independence. For their plight is caused by capitalism, not this illusion of "occupation" and "imperialism". It will be exacerbated, and the unity of the bourgeoisie will not falter, whilst the working class unity will falter.


They would both be important...there's no putting one above the other. So, Quebec's independence would be a defeat of Canadian Imperialism, and would cause a greater boost to the working class than say, the defeat of the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or Israel in Palestine?


Gaddafi in his fight against NATO imperialism? Yes, I support any and all Libyans who struggle against foreign meddling. The Taliban against NATO in Afghanistan? Well, I support any and all Afghans who struggle against foreign oppression, but the Taliban are the former friends of imperialism and could easily be so again, so it's not up to a clear-cut answer. Al Qaeda? No, not at all, for their victory would lead to no national liberation and thus no progress for workers. Supporting totalitarian utopian "socialists". Supporting Islamist reactionaries. Lol. Weren't you complaining how not progressive I was? Surely I am more progressive than Gaddafi?


Had the Bay of Pigs invasion been successful, there's every indication a US occupation would have followed in some manner. Even if that weren't the case, the defeat of imperialism at the Bay of Pigs was a matter of national liberation because without that victory, Cuba would have been under the thumb of imperialism and the working-class gains made since that point would have been impossible. Well, a capitalist government would have been installed. That's the extent of what would happen.


No, it doesn't, because national struggles against imperialism are class struggles. Further, fascists are pro-imperialists, and so no, I don't stand alongside them. Any other false notions you'd like to throw out there?
National struggles against imperialism are NOT class struggles. Sorry to burst your bubble. They are national struggles. Ireland has bourgeois and petit-bourgeois who want independence.

Do you think Hamas is a working class movement?

My god, your daft.

[manic expression]

Well, since this point is so very very important to you, I'll reiterate one major point to help clarify:

- This is 2011, not 1867. The British imperialism, and situation of Ireland, that Marx was discussing no longer exists, or applies to the situation in Ireland. No more African colonies, India is independent, Britain isn't actively oppressing the Irish. I'm talking about actual oppression, not "boohoo, Ireland is a part of Britain". etc.
- Though, why, you may ask I would disagree with him at the time? I have quoted Luxemburg, I have linked you to The National Question. You can read some Marxist literature, surely.
:laugh::laugh::laugh: So British occupation of Ireland isn't "actual oppression"? Imperialism really appreciates your support, but try to justify that statement. Go ahead, try.

I've already explained to you why I find Luxemburg's line to be incorrect, which it is. You failed to respond to my reasons because you have no valid position here.


Real world example, the Taliban in Afganistan, Hamas in Palestine.

So, you had the opportunity without independence then?
Naming organizations in countries isn't very helpful, but then again you don't really care about the situations in those countries, so it's typical of you.

The opportunity would certainly not be so clear. If most of Ireland didn't have independence, the crisis could be controlled more closely by British troops, Irish workers wouldn't have as much political space to organize, the Irish left would be actively repressed with great vigor.


So, why is it that you strive primarily for a minor defeat of Imperialism, rather than a large defeat of Imperialism elsewhere?
I promote immediate defeats of imperialism everywhere, minor and major alike. Further, it's not "minor" to the nation that's under imperialism's heel.


Well, you do believe in defeating it in Ireland first, or you would be protesting in the streets for X's independence first and foremost.
All of them.


It's the name of it. Whether you like it or not, IRELAND IS A PART OF GREAT BRITAIN.
ONLY BECAUSE OF OCCUPATION AND SUPPRESSION OF IRELAND'S RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION.

Whether you like it or not, YOU'RE APOLOGIZING FOR IMPERIALISM.

Make sense?


My concern isn't, as I have said, for the Irish workers. It is for the workers of the world. The "plight" of Irish workers will not end with independence. For their plight is caused by capitalism, not this illusion of "occupation" and "imperialism". It will be exacerbated, and the unity of the bourgeoisie will not falter, whilst the working class unity will falter.
So, Quebec's independence would be a defeat of Canadian Imperialism, and would cause a greater boost to the working class than say, the defeat of the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or Israel in Palestine?
No, you don't care about Irish workers, because you want to ignore their struggle for basic dignity in favor of your utopian ultra-left ramblings about a world revolution you have no realistic method of bringing about.

Their plight IS caused by imperialism, because we live in the era of imperialism, the final stage of capitalism. Irish workers in occupied Ireland are oppressed by imperialism.

Quebec's independence would be a step forward, but it isn't a question of absolute value but one of strategic reality. The defeat of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan or Israel would be a more strategically vital blow to imperialist interests, but that doesn't mean Quebecois self-determination isn't important to the Quebecois and Canadian workers.


Supporting totalitarian utopian "socialists". Supporting Islamist reactionaries. Lol. Weren't you complaining how not progressive I was? Surely I am more progressive than Gaddafi?
Why would you be more progressive than Gaddafi? Because you blather about your un-Marxist "socialism" while belittling the struggles of the workers of the world?


Well, a capitalist government would have been installed. That's the extent of what would happen.
National liberation then enters a new phase. See here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm).


National struggles against imperialism are NOT class struggles. Sorry to burst your bubble. They are national struggles. Ireland has bourgeois and petit-bourgeois who want independence.
Yes, they are class struggles, for the British imperialist bourgeoisie is the enemy, while on the side of Irish independence are workers allied with bourgeois elements. That is a struggle of class.


Do you think Hamas is a working class movement?
It's a multi-class organization.


My god, your daft.
Yes, your god is my daft. :laugh:

[brigadista]

A few questions?
ok -

1.isn't the british army still based in the 6 counties and actively involved in policing the communities?

2.Aren't the NI institutions still set up to ensure disparate treatment towards the communities as part of the colonial plan ?

3.how will socialism come about under those conditions without the removal of the physical presence and political governance of the occupying and dividing power?

[Die Rote Fahne]

:laugh::laugh::laugh: So British occupation of Ireland isn't "actual oppression"? Imperialism really appreciates your support, but try to justify that statement. Go ahead, try. No, it's not. I have stated, I do not believe in the "right to self-determination".


I've already explained to you why I find Luxemburg's line to be incorrect, which it is. You failed to respond to my reasons because you have no valid position here. Actually, you said because she didn't say why it was utopian. You didn't make any counter argument.



Naming organizations in countries isn't very helpful, but then again you don't really care about the situations in those countries, so it's typical of you. You asked me to do just that.


I promote immediate defeats of imperialism everywhere, minor and major alike. Further, it's not "minor" to the nation that's under imperialism's heel.When Ireland is blockaded by England, they build a wall around Ireland, violently oppress you, tear down your homes, force you out of your country, only then will Ireland's "plight" make it to an equal scale of Palestine's.

Ireland isn't "under imperialism's heel". It's sitting in a slightly less cozy chair than imperialism, next to Imperialism.


All of them.Including The Flemish Movement? Israel's right to self determination? The LNNK is Latvia?


ONLY BECAUSE OF OCCUPATION AND SUPPRESSION OF IRELAND'S RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION.Okay, relax Billy Mayes. I don't believe in a right to self-determination.


Whether you like it or not, YOU'RE APOLOGIZING FOR IMPERIALISM.I'm really not.


No, you don't care about Irish workers, because you want to ignore their struggle for basic dignity in favor of your utopian ultra-left ramblings about a world revolution you have no realistic method of bringing about. Yes...my ultra-left ramblings of world revolution...like...Marx...and...Trotsky...and you know...the others...


Their plight IS caused by imperialism, because we live in the era of imperialism, the final stage of capitalism. Irish workers in occupied Ireland are oppressed by imperialism. Besides being "DENIED THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION", how are they being oppressed?


Quebec's independence would be a step forward, but it isn't a question of absolute value but one of strategic reality. The defeat of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan or Israel would be a more strategically vital blow to imperialist interests, but that doesn't mean Quebecois self-determination isn't important to the Quebecois and Canadian workers. How would Quebec's independence be a step forward? What exactly is Ireland unable to do without independence?



Why would you be more progressive than Gaddafi? Because you blather about your un-Marxist "socialism" while belittling the struggles of the workers of the world? :cool:


Yes, they are class struggles, for the British imperialist bourgeoisie is the enemy, while on the side of Irish independence are workers allied with bourgeois elements. That is a struggle of class.
Wait...so...youre side has bourgeois elements, yet....it's...

you sound more and more like a corporatist every statement you make. Noting, also, the quote below.


It's a multi-class organization.

Yes, your god is my daft. :laugh::sleep:

[ProletarianResurrection]

You won't believe how many armchair republicans on here would disagree. Every time I try to point that out to some of my friends I end up wanting to bang my head against the wall

James Connolly was working class militant, involved in violent struggles in the USA with the IWW, the character in your avatar was middle class nationalist adventurer.

[Wanted Man]

They unwittingly give credit to racialists, who divide the working class, not on national lines, but ethnic and racial lines.

They really can't tell me the difference here. I mean, a united working class in the UK, including the Irish, is much stronger than a divided working class. It's called internationalism for a reason.

You think Ireland is part of the UK? :confused:

[Die Rote Fahne]

You think Ireland is part of the UK? :confused:
N. Ireland is. yeah.

[Art Vandelay]

James Connolly was working class militant, involved in violent struggles in the USA with the IWW, the character in your avatar was middle class nationalist adventurer.

Despite having nothing to do with the current debate, which although not posting I have been following, your comment about Che are clearly intended at nothing more than a tendency argument. You offer no justification for your opinion and frankly calling an international revolutionary who fought in three different countries, none being his own, a nationalist is pretty humorous. On top of that your comment could easily derail one of the few good arguments on this site and turn it into nothing more than the majority of other pointless sectarian threads which infest this site.

[Cork Socialist]

Except they're not...at all.

Listen, when you come up with the slightest shred of justification for your absurd little comparisons, let me know. Until then, you got nothing.

He is quite clearly making a joke....

[Wanted Man]

N. Ireland is. yeah.

Do you support the existence of Northern Ireland as part of the UK? You said "the Irish" anyway.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Do you support the existence of Northern Ireland as part of the UK? You said "the Irish" anyway.
I think it's irrelevant, if the Northern Irish want independence, it will come only with a working class revolution, not with bourgeois nationalism.

[manic expression]

No, it's not. I have stated, I do not believe in the "right to self-determination".
No, you don't, because you don't care about the struggle for liberation.


Actually, you said because she didn't say why it was utopian. You didn't make any counter argument.I said why it's incorrect. You failed to say anything because your position is paper-thin. Go back and address it or be held to be wrong.


When Ireland is blockaded by England, they build a wall around Ireland, violently oppress you, tear down your homes, force you out of your country, only then will Ireland's "plight" make it to an equal scale of Palestine's.

Ireland isn't "under imperialism's heel". It's sitting in a slightly less cozy chair than imperialism, next to Imperialism.Wait, so some imperialist occupations are OK, and others are not...depending upon how brutal they are? Imperialists can occupy whatever they want so long as they aren't as bad as Zionists in Palestine? Want to apologize for your imperialist masters even more?


Including The Flemish Movement? Israel's right to self determination? The LNNK is Latvia?Belgium was a country created out of common Catholicism and held together by an African-raping monarchy. If it ceases to exist it's not really something I care too much about. Israel isn't a nation so it has no right to self-determination. I have no idea what the LNNK is.


I'm really not.Yes, you are, because you're apologizing for the UK's occupation of Ireland.


Yes...my ultra-left ramblings of world revolution...like...Marx...and...Trotsky...and you know...the others...Except you disagree completely and directly with Marx and Trotsky on this issue. Good going.


Besides being "DENIED THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION", how are they being oppressed?That is oppression. Any other elementary questions you'd like cleared up?


How would Quebec's independence be a step forward? What exactly is Ireland unable to do without independence?Irish workers in the occupied counties aren't able to organize or promote their interests as well as those in the unoccupied portion of Ireland. Quebecois self-determination would increase workers' interests in an equal way, the forces against Quebec separating are most frequently found among Canadian capitalists.


Wait...so...youre side has bourgeois elements, yet....it's...Yet...it's...more progressive than you.


you sound more and more like a corporatist every statement you make. Noting, also, the quote below.Don't be mad just because Marx and Engels and Trotsky all disagree with you. :laugh:

[scarletghoul]

Crazy how the trots (in britain and in ireland) go on about their abstract socialist principles, all the time turning their back to a national liberation struggle thats taking place right on our doorstep,, then they wonder why the people dont join their party.. your are detatched as fuck from the objective situation !

[Die Rote Fahne]

No, you don't, because you don't care about the struggle for liberation. Not in Ireland, no.


I said why it's incorrect. You failed to say anything because your position is paper-thin. Go back and address it or be held to be wrong.you said because she didn't explain why it was utopian, have you read the national question?


Wait, so some imperialist occupations are OK, and others are not...depending upon how brutal they are? Imperialists can occupy whatever they want so long as they aren't as bad as Zionists in Palestine? Want to apologize for your imperialist masters even more?Strawman.


Belgium was a country created out of common Catholicism and held together by an African-raping monarchy. If it ceases to exist it's not really something I care too much about. Israel isn't a nation so it has no right to self-determination. I have no idea what the LNNK is.Israel is a nation actually. It exists, for better or for worse. The answer to it is a single bi-national state.


Yes, you are, because you're apologizing for the UK's occupation of Ireland. No, I'm just not supportingthe waste of time and obvious bourgeois nationalism that is Irish Republicanism.


Except you disagree completely and directly with Marx and Trotsky on this issue. Good going. Marx, yes. Trotsky...you have an article by Trotsky about Ireland?


That is oppression. Any other elementary questions you'd like cleared up? Exactly as I said. You have no other example of oppression besides the RTSD bs.


Irish workers in the occupied counties aren't able to organize or promote their interests as well as those in the unoccupied portion of Ireland. Quebecois self-determination would increase workers' interests in an equal way, the forces against Quebec separating are most frequently found among Canadian capitalists. What exactly can't the Irish worker in occupied counties do?

On Quebec, The largest separatist parties have been social democrats. Quebecers have equal ability to do everything. Your arguments are sad at best.


Yet...it's...more progressive than you.
Self admitted corporatist. See you in OI should a mod find this thread.

[manic expression]

Not in Ireland, no.
Right, because you don't care about the interests of Irish workers.


you said because she didn't explain why it was utopian, have you read the national question?Let me help you out:

Unfortunately, Rosa never explains why national liberation is "utopian", or why it would "go astray from the start". The assertion that national liberation is not in accordance with political realities is false, because the age of imperialism has made it an important aspect to oppress and subjugate nations for profit. The assertion that nationalist programs would subsume political ones is also incorrect, seeing as leaders of Irish Republican Socialism have been putting forth principled political programs for decades. The assertion that national liberation is "fruitless" is again incorrect, for the defeat of imperialism in one area of the world is a victory for the workers worldwide. In addition, workers are more effectively able to organize and pursue their interests if they are not under the heel of imperialist occupation (Iraq is a good example of this).

Back to the drawing board you go.

I'll wait until you compose an argument.


Strawman.It's not a strawman, it's the logical conclusion of your own point. You have no problem with imperialist occupation so long as it's not "this" brutal (whatever that limit is, which you don't define because you can't). That's why you admit you don't care about the struggle of Irish workers, because you're an ultra-left hack with no argument.


Israel is a nation actually. It exists, for better or for worse. The answer to it is a single bi-national state.:laugh::laugh::laugh: Hogwash. Israel isn't a nation, it doesn't fit any of the qualifications of that definition.

If you want to tell us why it is a nation as opposed to a country, get back to me. I'm quite sure you won't, though.


No, I'm just not supportingthe waste of time and obvious bourgeois nationalism that is Irish Republicanism.It's not a waste of time, nor is it bourgeois. You oppose Irish Republicanism because you don't care about the struggle of Irish workers.


Marx, yes. Trotsky...you have an article by Trotsky about Ireland?Read it and weep (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/xx/national.htm). :lol: And don't forget (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1916/07/dublin.htm)...

In a pathetic and shameful article, Plekhanov recently pointed to the ‘harmful’ character of the Irish uprising for the cause of freedom, rejoicing that the Irish nation ‘to their credit’ had realized this and not supported the revolutionary madmen. Only complete patriotic softening of all the joints could lead anyone to interpret the situation as if the Irish peasants had declined to participate in the revolution from the standpoint of the international situation, thus saving the ‘honour’ of Ireland. In actual fact they were led only by the obtuse egoism of the farmer and complete indifference to everything beyond the bounds of their plots of land. It was precisely because of this and only this that they supplied the London government with such a quick victory over the heroic defenders of the Dublin barricades. The undoubted personal courage, representing the hopes and methods of the past, is over. But the historical role of the Irish proletariat is only beginning. Already into this uprising – under an archaic banner – it has injected its class resentment against militarism and imperialism. That resentment from now on will not subside. On the contrary, it will find an echo throughout Great Britain. Scottish soldiers smashed the Dublin barricades. But in Scotland itself coal-miners are rallying round the red flag, raised by Maclean and his friends. Those very workers, who at the moment the Hendersons are trying to chain to the bloody chariot of imperialism, will revenge themselves against the hangman Lloyd George.

Have fun explaining away how you disagree with Marx, Engels and now Trotsky, too. More of your anti-Marxist nonsense should soon follow.


Exactly as I said. You have no other example of oppression besides the RTSD bs.:laugh: Keep going with your defense of imperialism, it's very funny to see you out yourself as a friend of the ruling class.


What exactly can't the Irish worker in occupied counties do?They can't live in a society that isn't divided by decades of imperialist oppression and the resulting fight against that. They can't approach organization of their class without the presence of an occupation. If you don't think that matters, read a history book.


On Quebec, The largest separatist parties have been social democrats. Quebecers have equal ability to do everything. Your arguments are sad at best.The largest anti-separatist parties are to the right of social democrats. That means your argument means nothing. :lol: As usual.


Self admitted corporatist. See you in OI should a mod find this thread.You're the one making excuses for imperialism in Ireland. I'm the one standing with the masses in their struggle for liberation...you know, the one you don't care about. That's why you're not progressive.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Right, because you don't care about the interests of Irish workers. Actually, it's quite the opposite.


Let me help you out:

Unfortunately, Rosa never explains why national liberation is "utopian", or why it would "go astray from the start". The assertion that national liberation is not in accordance with political realities is false, because the age of imperialism has made it an important aspect to oppress and subjugate nations for profit. The assertion that nationalist programs would subsume political ones is also incorrect, seeing as leaders of Irish Republican Socialism have been putting forth principled political programs for decades. The assertion that national liberation is "fruitless" is again incorrect, for the defeat of imperialism in one area of the world is a victory for the workers worldwide. In addition, workers are more effectively able to organize and pursue their interests if they are not under the heel of imperialist occupation (Iraq is a good example of this).

Back to the drawing board you go.

I'll wait until you compose an argument. She presents her case in The National Question (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/index.htm).


It's not a strawman, it's the logical conclusion of your own point. You have no problem with imperialist occupation so long as it's not "this" brutal (whatever that limit is, which you don't define because you can't). That's why you admit you don't care about the struggle of Irish workers, because you're an ultra-left hack with no argument.The struggle of Irish workers is against capitalism, not for independence.


:laugh::laugh::laugh: Hogwash. Israel isn't a nation, it doesn't fit any of the qualifications of that definition. If you want to tell us why it is a nation as opposed to a country, get back to me. I'm quite sure you won't, though. "Nation". Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged (10th ed.). Retrieved 17 June 2011. "1. an aggregation of people or peoples of one or more cultures, races, etc, organized into a single state: the Australian nation".


It's not a waste of time, nor is it bourgeois. You oppose Irish Republicanism because you don't care about the struggle of Irish workers.
It's funny that you keep repeating yourself about this non-point.


Read it and weep (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/xx/national.htm). :lol: And don't forget (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1916/07/dublin.htm)...

In a pathetic and shameful article, Plekhanov recently pointed to the ‘harmful’ character of the Irish uprising for the cause of freedom, rejoicing that the Irish nation ‘to their credit’ had realized this and not supported the revolutionary madmen. Only complete patriotic softening of all the joints could lead anyone to interpret the situation as if the Irish peasants had declined to participate in the revolution from the standpoint of the international situation, thus saving the ‘honour’ of Ireland. In actual fact they were led only by the obtuse egoism of the farmer and complete indifference to everything beyond the bounds of their plots of land. It was precisely because of this and only this that they supplied the London government with such a quick victory over the heroic defenders of the Dublin barricades. The undoubted personal courage, representing the hopes and methods of the past, is over. But the historical role of the Irish proletariat is only beginning. Already into this uprising – under an archaic banner – it has injected its class resentment against militarism and imperialism. That resentment from now on will not subside. On the contrary, it will find an echo throughout Great Britain. Scottish soldiers smashed the Dublin barricades. But in Scotland itself coal-miners are rallying round the red flag, raised by Maclean and his friends. Those very workers, who at the moment the Hendersons are trying to chain to the bloody chariot of imperialism, will revenge themselves against the hangman Lloyd George.

Have fun explaining away how you disagree with Marx, Engels and now Trotsky, too. More of your anti-Marxist nonsense should soon follow. Considering the idea of a "nations right to self determination" is in fact, anti-Marxian, as dialectical materialism has once and for all broken the "eternal" formula of "rights" (There are not "rights" there are no "eternal truths"). So, when it comes to this, you disagree with Marx and Marxian theory. For Marx, the Irish question was not one of "RTSD".

I disagree with Trotsky on a few things actually.


:laugh: Keep going with your defense of imperialism, it's very funny to see you out yourself as a friend of the ruling class.I remember you saying your movement had bourgeois elements. If you want to result to petty attacks like this, calling me anti-Irish, anti-Marxist, and a friend to the ruling class, this conversation will go nowhere.


They can't live in a society that isn't divided by decades of imperialist oppression and the resulting fight against that. They can't approach organization of their class without the presence of an occupation. If you don't think that matters, read a history book.So, be specific, perhaps a hypothetical example of how this prevents a socialist struggle in Ireland?


The largest anti-separatist parties are to the right of social democrats. That means your argument means nothing. :lol: As usual.Social Democrats are still capitalists.


You're the one making excuses for imperialism in Ireland. I'm the one standing with the masses in their struggle for liberation...you know, the one you don't care about. That's why you're not progressive.

I'm not, I'm making an argument of why the Irish struggle for independence is a waste of time, at this particular point in history.

You've yet to respond to the point I made when it comes to Marx. His analysis of Ireland and the struggle for independence was made 150 years ago. You must be aware that the situation in Ireland is much different now. You make no note of the character of capitalism then compared to now, nor of the character of oppression. Marx did not believe, as I have noted, in a nations "right to self-determination".

[CommieTroll]

James Connolly was working class militant, involved in violent struggles in the USA with the IWW, the character in your avatar was middle class nationalist adventurer.

How would you argue that Che was a nationalist? And what does my avatar have to do with anything? Stop trying to get a rise out of me, it solves nothing.
And on the note of Irish nationalism, Michael Davitt based his argument of Socialism in Ireland on the fact that Ireland could only achieve independence with the help of the British working class.

[ProletarianResurrection]

How would you argue that Che was a nationalist? And what does my avatar have to do with anything? Stop trying to get a rise out of me, it solves nothing.
And on the note of Irish nationalism, Michael Davitt based his argument of Socialism in Ireland on the fact that Ireland could only achieve independence with the help of the British working class.

Of course Che was a nationalist who turned to the weaker super power in order to build a stronger Latin America, and of course he was a middle class adventurer. How many Loyalists or Unionists do you actually know a chara? I dont have to much time at all for romantic nationalism but a lot of left wing psuedo-anti-nationalism is based around ignoring the elephant of British Imperialism in the room and cowardice in the face of the Special Branch and internment (notice the silence of the ULA on the "Special Criminal courts???).

[Die Rote Fahne]

Of course Che was a nationalist who turned to the weaker super power in order to build a stronger Latin America, and of course he was a middle class adventurer. How many Loyalists or Unionists do you actually know a chara? I dont have to much time at all for romantic nationalism but a lot of left wing psuedo-anti-nationalism is based around ignoring the elephant of British Imperialism in the room and cowardice in the face of the Special Branch and internment (notice the silence of the ULA on the "Special Criminal courts???).

A man who fights for the proletariat in 3 different nations, none of which are his own, is a nationalist?

[ProletarianResurrection]

A man who fights for the proletariat in 3 different nations, none of which are his own, is a nationalist?

Think about it, and I dont think he was fighting for the proletariat, rather for the patriotic middle class....

[black magick hustla]

irish national liberation is a pipe dream it will never happen

[ProletarianResurrection]

irish national liberation is a pipe dream it will never happen

Im oh so tempted to thank this post :blushing:

But legalists who ignore internment without trial and just how reactionary Unionism is are still fucking cowards.

[CommieTroll]

Think about it, and I dont think he was fighting for the proletariat, rather for the patriotic middle class....

How was he fighting for the middle class? He was a dedicated Marxist who fought endlessly for the emancipation of the proletariat and no I'm not mindlessly worshiping Che. He sacrificed most of the luxuries in life to fight in the Cuban revolutionary war, the Congo & Bolivia, I don't see how he was fighting for the middle class. Just because a revolutionary is not proletarian he isn't a genuine revolutionary? By that logic Lenin would be a ''middle class agent'' just like Che, in your eyes anyway

[CommieTroll]

Im oh so tempted to thank this post :blushing:

But legalists who ignore internment without trial and just how reactionary Unionism is are still fucking cowards.

Have I ever ignored either of them? I don't think anyone on this forum ignores those two points. That's just fucking absurd

[Die Rote Fahne]

The middle-class does not exist in Marxian class analysis. Of which analysis, class is based on relationship to property, and not income or status.

What is considered middle class by American capitalists today is actually the working class. The term middle is used to separate the higher wage earners from the lower wage earners.

[freepalestine]

what have you done for the working class..that is as revolutionary as people like che and connolly for instance

@ProletarianResurrection

[manic expression]

Actually, it's quite the opposite.
Too bad your words show otherwise.


She presents her case in The National Question (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/index.htm).
So you're still unwilling or unable to deal with the issues I brought up. You lose.


The struggle of Irish workers is against capitalism, not for independence.
The one is intertwined with another.


"Nation". Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged (10th ed.). Retrieved 17 June 2011. "1. an aggregation of people or peoples of one or more cultures, races, etc, organized into a single state: the Australian nation".
:laugh::laugh::laugh: Nonsense. Dictionaries classify American bourgeois elections as "revolutions"...are you going to take their word on that term, too?


It's funny that you keep repeating yourself about this non-point.
It's funny that you can't address it because you have no argument.


Considering the idea of a "nations right to self determination" is in fact, anti-Marxian,
Then why did Marx promote Ireland's right to exactly that?


I disagree with Trotsky on a few things actually.
Not to mention Marx, Engels and other actual communists.


I remember you saying your movement had bourgeois elements.
Wrong. The movements for the independence of oppressed nations have bourgeois elements, although they happen to be more progressive than you. At any rate, those don't count as "my movement". Do try to keep up.


So, be specific, perhaps a hypothetical example of how this prevents a socialist struggle in Ireland?
A union organizer from a Catholic area of Belfast wants to organize in a Protestant one...


Social Democrats are still capitalists.
And capitalists are capitalists...meaning that your allies against Quebecois independence are bourgeois. Well done on outing yourself as a hypocrite once again. :lol:


I'm not, I'm making an argument of why the Irish struggle for independence is a waste of time, at this particular point in history.
Except you haven't brought any justifications, so you haven't actually made an argument. What you're doing is repeating ultra-left garbage and hoping no one notices. Don't worry, it's typical of imperialist apologists like yourself.


You've yet to respond to the point I made when it comes to Marx. His analysis of Ireland and the struggle for independence was made 150 years ago.
Yes, when Ireland was completely occupied. Now it's partially occupied. The only difference is that we are now to liberate the remaining seven occupied counties.

What you're saying is the same as "well Marx's analysis of capitalism and the struggle for working-class liberation was made 150 years ago...capitalism isn't the same today...so I guess we can forget about that whole revolution thing!!!!!! lolz0rz!!!!!!!!!!!eleevvenz!!!!!!!!!!!!" :laugh:

[manic expression]

The middle-class does not exist in Marxian class analysis. Of which analysis, class is based on relationship to property, and not income or status.

What is considered middle class by American capitalists today is actually the working class. The term middle is used to separate the higher wage earners from the lower wage earners.
:lol: Then how do you explain Marx's multiple references to the middle class in the Manifesto?

[Die Rote Fahne]

:lol: Then how do you explain Marx's multiple references to the middle class in the Manifesto?

Where abouts are they?

[manic expression]

Where abouts are they?
In the first chapter.

The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class.

There's more.

[Die Rote Fahne]

In the first chapter.

The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class.

There's more.

Perhaps you can cite a link to it on the MIA?

[manic expression]

Perhaps you can cite a link to it on the MIA?
Google it.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Google it.
I'm not doing your work for you.

[Tjis]

The workers of Belfast have just as much right to self-determination as the workers of London and the workers of Dublin. Which is to say, none at all. If there was ever a serious uprising the army would swoop down on each of those cities. Sure, it'd be a different army but that's just a difference in uniform. The bullets and guns are all the same (NATO standards) and so are the interests for which they are fired.
Both Ireland and the UK have been part of the European Union for decades (both joined in 1973) and both are firmly on the side of the imperialist part of international capitalism. Ireland contributes to Frontex (the border watch of the EU tasked with keeping out African immigrants and detaining and deporting the ones that manage to get in anyway), and Ireland is a member of NATO and has deployed troops all over the world to defend its interests. Why Ireland is supposedly more progressive than the UK is beyond me.

Both the north and the south are part of the same supernation with the same global interests. As far as capitalism is concerned, the EU no longer has any separate nations anyway. It just has areas where different labor laws apply, giving the European bourgeoisie a great opportunity to shop for the cheapest workforce.
Ireland has moved up in the world and has become one of the oppressing nations instead of an oppressed one. Sure, their economy isn't doing very well at the moment, something that's prevalent among many of the EU border countries right now, but it is still doing better than it would if Ireland was independent from the EU. Ireland is no longer the agrarian country it was during the potato famine. It's now heavily dependent on international trade and pulling out of the EU would mean an immediate economic collapse.

So what would full Irish independence mean? It certainly wouldn't mean that North Irish workers would no longer be exploited by British (or any other foreign) capitalists, because Ireland is part of the same free trade zone. It wouldn't give the Irish any more opportunities for self-determination, or building socialism, or anything else because their rulers would simply not change.

This was different in the 20s, and it was different in the 60s. An independent Ireland back then would have meant the pulling out of foreign capitalists and that would have been progressive (though not necessarily socialist). But times change.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Too bad your words show otherwise. Too bad they don't. I'm sorry that your nationalism has blinded you so badly that you can't analytically think anymore.


So you're still unwilling or unable to deal with the issues I brought up. You lose. Read The National Question. It lays out quite clear that each struggle for independence has to be analyzed by its situation at present, and not an anti-dialectical formulae of a nations "right" to self determination. For instance, Marx didn't support the idea of "The Right to self-determination of all nations". This is evident in his opposition to Czech independence, as well as others.



The one is intertwined with another.In some situations it can be. When it comes to modern day Ireland, it simply is not.



:laugh::laugh::laugh: Nonsense. Dictionaries classify American bourgeois elections as "revolutions"...are you going to take their word on that term, too? The point is that there are many definitions of words. If you want to take this on a semantics level, I can e-mail professor Chomsky for his opinion on the term "nation". As a linguist, he should know a thing or two about the definition of words.



It's funny that you can't address it because you have no argument. That I'm anti-Irish, anti-Marxist, not progressive and a friend of the ruling class...no...I'm ALL OF THOSE THINGS.



Then why did Marx promote Ireland's right to exactly that?He didn't promote their "right". He promoted the independence of Ireland as important to the class struggle. It was the exact situation of Ireland at the time. He took a dialectical materialist approach, analyzed the situation, and came to the conclusion that independence was necessary at the time.

As I have said above. Marx didn't support the "right to self-determination of nations" when it came to the Czechs and others.



Not to mention Marx, Engels and other actual communists. On some issues, yes, I disagree with Lenin, Mao, Trotsky, Stalin, Kautsky, De Leon, etc.


Wrong. The movements for the independence of oppressed nations have bourgeois elements, although they happen to be more progressive than you. At any rate, those don't count as "my movement". Do try to keep up.Yes, we all know how not progressive I am. It's becoming a redundancy in your responses.


A union organizer from a Catholic area of Belfast wants to organize in a Protestant one...
This case is clearly one of religion, and not the nation of England oppressing Ireland. Religion, as we know, has always been a friend of the ruling classes. Religions, as well, have always had conflict. In Ireland it's been protestants versus Catholics. The Crusades were Muslims versus Christians, etc etc etc.


And capitalists are capitalists...meaning that your allies against Quebecois independence are bourgeois. Well done on outing yourself as a hypocrite once again. :lol: See, your lack of thinking makes you look like an idiot. I do not support the independence of Quebec, and that is based on a dialectical analysis of the situation there, and it's relevance to working class emancipation.

The capitalists support it, or oppose it, because of nationalism.


Except you haven't brought any justifications, so you haven't actually made an argument. What you're doing is repeating ultra-left garbage and hoping no one notices. Don't worry, it's typical of imperialist apologists like yourself. See my arguments above.


Yes, when Ireland was completely occupied. Now it's partially occupied. The only difference is that we are now to liberate the remaining seven occupied counties.Which is a huge waste of time. Marx, being a dialectical materialist, would analyze the current situation and argue against independence.


What you're saying is the same as "well Marx's analysis of capitalism and the struggle for working-class liberation was made 150 years ago...capitalism isn't the same today...so I guess we can forget about that whole revolution thing!!!!!! lolz0rz!!!!!!!!!!!eleevvenz!!!!!!!!!!!!" :laugh:It's actually not. See, unlike yourself, I don't believe Marx is infallible. So, when it comes to some of his analysis on things such as independence movements, he was right on some, and wrong on others. This is also laid out in The National Question.

On the case of the analysis of capitalism and working-class liberation he is correct. We have seen capitalism develop in the way in which he said it would. We know that class conflict occurs. We know that, as Marxists, the emancipation of the working class from capital is an inevitability.

The whole idea of not making a religion out of communism, you seemed to have done just that. :sleep:

[crazyirish93]

The workers of Belfast have just as much right to self-determination as the workers of London and the workers of Dublin. Which is to say, none at all. If there was ever a serious uprising the army would swoop down on each of those cities. Sure, it'd be a different army but that's just a difference in uniform. The bullets and guns are all the same (NATO standards) and so are the interests for which they are fired.
Both Ireland and the UK have been part of the European Union for decades (both joined in 1973) and both are firmly on the side of the imperialist part of international capitalism. Ireland contributes to Frontex (the border watch of the EU tasked with keeping out African immigrants and detaining and deporting the ones that manage to get in anyway), and Ireland is a member of NATO and has deployed troops all over the world to defend its interests. Why Ireland is supposedly more progressive than the UK is beyond me.

Both the north and the south are part of the same supernation with the same global interests. As far as capitalism is concerned, the EU no longer has any separate nations anyway. It just has areas where different labor laws apply, giving the European bourgeoisie a great opportunity to shop for the cheapest workforce.
Ireland has moved up in the world and has become one of the oppressing nations instead of an oppressed one. Sure, their economy isn't doing very well at the moment, something that's prevalent among many of the EU border countries right now, but it is still doing better than it would if Ireland was independent from the EU. Ireland is no longer the agrarian country it was during the potato famine. It's now heavily dependent on international trade and pulling out of the EU would mean an immediate economic collapse.

So what would full Irish independence mean? It certainly wouldn't mean that North Irish workers would no longer be exploited by British (or any other foreign) capitalists, because Ireland is part of the same free trade zone. It wouldn't give the Irish any more opportunities for self-determination, or building socialism, or anything else because their rulers would simply not change.

This was different in the 20s, and it was different in the 60s. An independent Ireland back then would have meant the pulling out of foreign capitalists and that would have been progressive (though not necessarily socialist). But times change.
Ireland was never a member of NATO it has however deployed troops on peacekeeping missions in the Congo Lebanon and many others under the banner of the un also i dont believe anyone here is supporting a a pure nationalist reunification but rather as part of a socialist movement.

[Tjis]

Ireland was never a member of NATO btw it has deployed troops on peacekeeping missions in the Congo Lebanon and many others under the banner of the un. also i dont believe anyone here is supporting a a pure nationalist reunification.

Woah, you're right. Ireland is not part of NATO, sorry about that. There is cooperation though. Irish troops are stationed abroad in NATO initiatives, carrying NATO weapons. (http://www.nato.int/issues/nato-ireland/)

And yes, nobody is supporting a pure nationalist reunification here, but that's irrelevant. Most Irish nationalists are not communists, and except for some RIRA posturing the Irish nationalist struggle is not about achieving revolution. That'd still be fine if a mere nationalist struggle was progressive in the current context, but it's not.

[crazyirish93]

Yes u are correct that our government has cooperated with NATO in any way it can without blatantly breaking Ireland's stance on neutrality and to your point on most nationalists not being communist's your correct but that can be changed and hopefully will be in the future.

[Kotze]

I don't know everything Marx ever wrote, but what is "middle class" in the English version of the Communist Manifesto is "Mittelstand" in the German version, meaning small/medium biz.

[manic expression]

Too bad they don't. I'm sorry that your nationalism has blinded you so badly that you can't analytically think anymore.
You're the one who can't even bring yourself to read the Manifesto. :laugh:


Read The National Question.
I already showed you why Luxemburg's line on this is incorrect. You're dodging the point because you're an ultra-left hack with no argument.


In some situations it can be. When it comes to modern day Ireland, it simply is not.
Which means in some situations you're an imperialist apologist.


The point is that there are many definitions of words.
And many of them are anti-Marxist...just like the definition of "nation" you used.


That I'm anti-Irish, anti-Marxist, not progressive and a friend of the ruling class...no...I'm ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
Well, one follows from the other.


He didn't promote their "right". He promoted the independence of Ireland as important to the class struggle.
Which you don't do. Thanks for admitting it.
As I have said above. Marx didn't support the "right to self-determination of nations" when it came to the Czechs and others.
Show us precisely where he rejected the rights of the Czechs and we'll talk.

On some issues, yes, I disagree with Lenin, Mao, Trotsky, Stalin, Kautsky, De Leon, etc.
And Marx and Engels...on fundamental questions of class struggle.


This case is clearly one of religion, and not the nation of England oppressing Ireland.
:laugh::laugh::laugh: Read a history book...oppressing Catholics and dividing them from Protestants was and is a hallmark of British rule.


See, your lack of thinking makes you look like an idiot. I do not support the independence of Quebec, and that is based on a dialectical analysis of the situation there, and it's relevance to working class emancipation.
Your "dialectical analysis" is that the denial of Quebecois sovereignty isn't as bad as Zionist brutality in Palestine. Some "dialectical analysis", indeed! :lol:


The capitalists support it, or oppose it, because of nationalism.
Or because something's good for business.


Which is a huge waste of time. Marx, being a dialectical materialist, would analyze the current situation and argue against independence.
Too bad you oppose Marx's understanding of national self-determination.


It's actually not. See, unlike yourself, I don't believe Marx is infallible.
Then why don't you try to tell us why you oppose Marx's support of Irish independence? You haven't even tried to explain this...because you can't...because you're an ultra-left hack with no argument.

[Die Rote Fahne]

You're the one who can't even bring yourself to read the Manifesto. :laugh: I've read it 3 or 4 times actually.



I already showed you why Luxemburg's line on this is incorrect. You're dodging the point because you're an ultra-left hack with no argument.
You never, actually.


Which means in some situations you're an imperialist apologist. No, it means in some situations, like Marx, I do not support certain national struggles of independence.



And many of them are anti-Marxist...just like the definition of "nation" you used. Yeah...okay...what communist dictionary did you learn the term "nation" from?



Which you don't do. Thanks for admitting it.
Show us precisely where he rejected the rights of the Czechs and we'll talk. "The question of nationality gave rise to another struggle in Bohemia. This country, inhabited by two millions of Germans, and three millions of Slavonians of the Czechian tongue, had great historical recollections, almost all connected with the former supremacy of the Czechs. But then the force of this branch of the Slavonic family had been broken ever since the wars of the Hussites in the fifteenth century. The province speaking the Czechian tongue was divided, one part forming the kingdom of Bohemia, another the principality of Moravia, a third the Carpathian hill country of the Slovaks, being part of Hungary. The Moravians and Slovaks had long since lost every vestige of national feeling, and vitality, although mostly preserving their language. Bohemia was surrounded by thoroughly German countries on three sides out of four. The German element had made great progress on her own territory; even in the capital, in Prague, the two nationalities were pretty equally matched; and everywhere capital, trade, industry, and mental culture were in the hands of the Germans. The chief champion of the Czechian nationality, Professor Palacky, is himself nothing but a learned German run mad, who even now cannot speak the Czechian language correctly and without foreign accent. But, as it often happens, dying Czechian nationality, dying according to every fact known in history for the last four hundred years, made in 1848 a last effort to regain its former vitality an effort whose failure, independently of all revolutionary considerations, was to prove that Bohemia could only exist, henceforth, as a portion of Germany, although part of her inhabitants might yet, for some centuries, continue to speak a non‑German language." [Revolution and Konterrevolution in Deutschland, pp.57-62]


And Marx and Engels...on fundamental questions of class struggle. No, actually.



:laugh::laugh::laugh: Read a history book...oppressing Catholics and dividing them from Protestants was and is a hallmark of British rule. Uh-huh.



Your "dialectical analysis" is that the denial of Quebecois sovereignty isn't as bad as Zionist brutality in Palestine. Some "dialectical analysis", indeed! :lol: Wait...so...Quebecers are just as oppressed as Palestinians... You're the biggest moron on this forum.



Or because something's good for business. Yes.


Too bad you oppose Marx's understanding of national self-determination. Do explain his understanding of national self-determination.



Then why don't you try to tell us why you oppose Marx's support of Irish independence? You haven't even tried to explain this...because you can't...because you're an ultra-left hack with no argument. Because it's 2011 not 1864. The situation has changed in Ireland. For an Irishman, it's something you should understand.

[manic expression]

I've read it 3 or 4 times actually.
And apparently you didn't notice that Marx keeps referring to the middle class.

Try reading it again.


You never, actually.
Actually, I did, I posted it twice.


No, it means in some situations, like Marx, I do not support certain national struggles of independence.
And unlike Marx you don't care about the struggle of the Irish workers.


Yeah...okay...what communist dictionary did you learn the term "nation" from?
Materialism. :lol:


[Revolution and Konterrevolution in Deutschland, pp.57-62]

That's an argument predicated upon the fact that the region in question was as much German as it was Czech. It's not at all applicable here.


No, actually.
Nice argument.


Uh-huh.
See above. :lol:


Wait...so...Quebecers are just as oppressed as Palestinians... You're the biggest moron on this forum.
Ah, so the Quebecois are oppressed after all! Thanks for admitting that, finally.


Yes.
Right...and you're on their side.


Do explain his understanding of national self-determination.
Issues of Irish ownership are to be left to the Irish.


Because it's 2011 not 1864. The situation has changed in Ireland. For an Irishman, it's something you should understand.
The situation has changed and yet much of Ireland remains under occupation. THAT must be changed.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Manic Expression-I want to know how you define "Nation" in such a manner that Israel is not a nation, and that Palestine, Ireland or Quebec are nations? What are Israelis if not a national people with some amount of collective identity, common language and culture? Whatever you think of their political project, there is a Jewish majority currently residing in Israel as culturally and linguistically distinct from their Arab neighbors. I don't think there really is an objective, universal definition of the concept of the "nation" which applies in all circumstances anyways, but it would be interesting to know yours and how you are using it.

How do you think liberation should come for nations which are impractically small, IE the Hopi Nation. Surely political independence for them would be less practical than operating as an autonomous national-territorial grouping within a broader organizing body? Also I would like an explanation of why the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish working classes cannot work together under a single body despite linguistic and cultural differences. On the contrary dividing up one country into many based on national lines can simply add to the divisions amongst the working class and allow them to be exploited by the international bourgeois more easily. Bolivia for instance was a case where White "nations" in the East of the country exploited the poor indigenous nations in the highlands, but when Evo Morales came to power instead of splitting the country he did the opposite-he created a "plurinational state". His plan seems to recognize that liberation of workers among a national group doesn't necessitate that nation's political division from another national group.

I also know you oppose Tibetan national self determination, despite the fact that China has become a fairly Capitalist and nationalistic country with a mixed record on its treatment of minority nations, including others like Turkestan (and before you do, don't say "but the dalai lama is a feudalist/cia plant" line I'm not talking about Tibetan economic policies in the 1940s or a monk's unfortunate alliance with imperialist intelligence agencies, I'm talking about the very real discontent among the Tibetan, Uighur and Mongol nations in the 2010s and China's repressive tactics against these movements.) Why do you draw the line where you do?

[Die Rote Fahne]

And apparently you didn't notice that Marx keeps referring to the middle class. Not really no.


Try reading it again.I did. In the first chapter, he uses it to mention Guild masters and artisans under Feudalism twice, and he uses it one more time to reference "the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population. ".

So much for "throughout"...

Actually, I did, I posted it twice.
It wasn't an argument. It was a blind comment by someone who hasn't read her work.


And unlike Marx you don't care about the struggle of the Irish workers. Clearly. I also don't care about the Czech worker's....like Marx...:rolleyes:



Materialism. :lol:There's a dictionary called "Materialism"?



That's an argument predicated upon the fact that the region in question was as much German as it was Czech. It's not at all applicable here.Lol, it's a case of national self determination, and something you claim is a right, and you support haha.

I'll throw another one, what about Marx and Engels speaking against the Balkan Slavs and supporting the the Turks?

"For they judged the national movements of the Slavic peoples in the Turkish empire not from the standpoint of the “eternal” sentimental formulae of liberalism, but from the standpoint of the material conditions which determined the content of these national movements, according to their views of the time. Marx and Engels saw in the freedom movement of the socially backward South Slavs only the machinations of Russian tsardom trying to irritate the Turks, and thus, without any second thoughts, they subordinated the question of the national freedom of the Slavs to the interests of European democracy, insisting on the integrity of Turkey as a bulwark of defense against Russian reaction. " - Luxemburg, The National Question



Nice argument.I don't need to argue it. I disagree with the modern "liberation" of Ireland, and I'm against Marx on fundamental questions of Class Struggle? Ok pal.


See above. :lol:Your use of emoticons is very distracting.


Ah, so the Quebecois are oppressed after all! Thanks for admitting that, finally.Strawman. I never said they "were oppressed". I said that your claim that they were more oppressed than Palestinians, made you a batshit IDIOT.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol ::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lau gh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laug h::D:D:D:D:D


Right...and you're on their side....it's like I'm talking to a child...


Issues of Irish ownership are to be left to the Irish.So, what about the Czech's and the Balkan Slavs?


The situation has changed and yet much of Ireland remains under occupation. THAT must be changed.It's a) a waste of time to change and b) NOT fundamental or important to the struggle of the working class against capitalism and c) so entrenched, today, in petty bourgeois nationalism I can smell it from here.

[Invader Zim]

Manic Expression is a very embittered individual. You will never present an idea or position that will shake his/her over arching thesis, and if you do all you will recieve is various accusations of ideological infedelity.
What is the point?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Manic Expression is a very embittered individual. You will never present an idea or position that will shake his/her over arching thesis, and if you do all you will recieve is more of the same.

If you take the overtly socialist position of opposing nationalism in all its reactionary forms, you are branded a fascist. There is no point attempting to point out the folly of this argument. But don't worry, everybody knows it is shit.
According to him, I'm an anti-Marxist, anti-Irish, anti-progressive, friend of the rich. How I've snuck that past the admins for this long I do not know...

[manic expression]

Not really no.
Read the thread...you thought talking about a middle class wasn't Marxist...but you're wrong, as usual.


I did. In the first chapter, he uses it to mention Guild masters and artisans under Feudalism twice, and he uses it one more time to reference "the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population. ".
Finally you brought yourself to look at Marx's writings...but I see now that you're not arguing your original point.


It wasn't an argument. It was a blind comment by someone who hasn't read her work.
I read the writings you posted and showed you why she was incorrect. Cry all you want about it, but you haven't responded to it.


Clearly. I also don't care about the Czech worker's....like Marx...:rolleyes:
You haven't given us any reason to think that you do.


There's a dictionary called "Materialism"?
There's an analysis called materialism. Try it sometime.


Lol, it's a case of national self determination, and something you claim is a right, and you support haha.

I'll throw another one, what about Marx and Engels speaking against the Balkan Slavs and supporting the the Turks?

"For they judged the national movements of the Slavic peoples in the Turkish empire not from the standpoint of the “eternal” sentimental formulae of liberalism, but from the standpoint of the material conditions which determined the content of these national movements, according to their views of the time. Marx and Engels saw in the freedom movement of the socially backward South Slavs only the machinations of Russian tsardom trying to irritate the Turks, and thus, without any second thoughts, they subordinated the question of the national freedom of the Slavs to the interests of European democracy, insisting on the integrity of Turkey as a bulwark of defense against Russian reaction. " - Luxemburg, The National Question
Show me Marx and Engels' exact words and maybe you'll have something.


I don't need to argue it. I disagree with the modern "liberation" of Ireland, and I'm against Marx on fundamental questions of Class Struggle? Ok pal.
You disagree with the right of Ireland to not be occupied, and so you disagree with Marx and you put to rest any illusion that you support the struggle of Irish workers.


Strawman. I never said they "were oppressed". I said that your claim that they were more oppressed than Palestinians, made you a batshit IDIOT.
Too bad I never claimed that. :laugh: Any other lies you'd like to use to distract from your anti-Marxist, pro-Canadian business BS?


So, what about the Czech's and the Balkan Slavs?
I already explained the aspects of the situation of the Czechs that disqualifies it from the use in which you seek to employ it. You haven't quoted anything directly on the Balkans, so I'll wait until you do.


It's a) a waste of time to change and b) NOT fundamental or important to the struggle of the working class against capitalism and c) so entrenched, today, in petty bourgeois nationalism I can smell it from here.
It's not a waste of time to change it because it oppresses Irish workers (something you admit to). It is fundamental to class struggle because anyd defeat of imperialism benefits the masses. But you don't care about any of that because you're an ultra-left hack. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::laugh::la ugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::D:D :D:D:D

[manic expression]

According to him, I'm an anti-Marxist,
You patently and admittedly reject Marx's analysis of Ireland and its relation to British rule.


anti-Irish,
You care nothing for the oppression (something you admit to exist) of Irish workers in occupied Ireland, and you say their struggle against imperialism is a "waste of time". Your politics are very anti-Irish.


anti-progressive,
Ultra-left hacks often find it so.


friend of the rich.
You seem quite fond of telling us how imperialism isn't so bad in its occupation of Ireland, so ideologically you seem more concerned with defending imperialism than you do the workers under its heel.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Read the thread...you thought talking about a middle class wasn't Marxist...but you're wrong, as usual.I never said talking about it wasn't "Marxist". I said that calling the proletariat middle class was not. Though, you claim he does it quite a bit in the work.


Finally you brought yourself to look at Marx's writings...but I see now that you're not arguing your original point.How so?



I read the writings you posted and showed you why she was incorrect. Cry all you want about it, but you haven't responded to it.
You read all 134 pages of The National Question? No, you read the quotations I posted....which were a mere paragraph on a page.


You haven't given us any reason to think that you do.Moron.



There's an analysis called materialism. Try it sometime.So, you analyzed the word nation by yourself, from a materialist viewpoint, and came to the conclusion that it only means what?

Why can't you use the historical materialist viewpoint to realize that Irish independence is not a struggle the working class should be in support of right now?


Show me Marx and Engels' exact words and maybe you'll have something.I'll give you a quote from Engels, in a letter to Bernstein, on the matter:

"We must co-operate in the work of setting the West European proletariat free and subordinate everything else to that goal. No matter how interesting the Balkan Slavs, etc., might be, the moment their desire for liberation clashes with the interests of the proletariat they can go hang for all I care. The Alsatians, too, are oppressed, and I shall be glad when we are once more quit of them. " - Engels.

So much for RIGHT to self determination, eh?

You can find anything else yourself.



You disagree with the right of Ireland to not be occupied, and so you disagree with Marx and you put to rest any illusion that you support the struggle of Irish workers.And you disagree with Marx on the Blakan Slavs and the Czechs, cause you believe in the RIGHT to self determination of all nations.

Being against a national liberation movement, or any independence movement, does not make one "anti-*insert nation here*". Fucking eejit.



Too bad I never claimed that. :laugh: Any other lies you'd like to use to distract from your anti-Marxist, pro-Canadian business BS?Ad hominems are fun....but you have to come up with some new ones...

"Your 'dialectical analysis' is that the denial of Quebecois sovereignty isn't as bad as Zionist brutality in Palestine. Some 'dialectical analysis', indeed! :lol:" - Manic Expression

I already explained the aspects of the situation of the Czechs that disqualifies it from the use in which you seek to employ it. You haven't quoted anything directly on the Balkans, so I'll wait until you do. No, you claimed you firmly believe, as the party you support does, in the RIGHT to self determination of all nations.



It's not a waste of time to change it because it oppresses Irish workers (something you admit to). It is fundamental to class struggle because anyd defeat of imperialism benefits the masses. But you don't care about any of that because you're an ultra-left hack. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::laugh::la ugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::D:D :D:D:DIt isn't fundamental to class struggle....that's the whole point. You ultra-right hack.

[manic expression]

I never said talking about it wasn't "Marxist". I said that calling the proletariat middle class was not. Though, you claim he does it quite a bit in the work.
You're either lying or running away from your own words. Either way, it's childish.

The middle-class does not exist in Marxian class analysis.

You wrote that.


How so?
See above.


You read all 134 pages of The National Question? No, you read the quotations I posted....which were a mere paragraph on a page.
Yes, and I showed you why those quotations were incorrect. You never responded to it because you don't actually have an argument here other than your disdain for the rights of Irish workers.


Moron.
Nice come-back. :laugh:


So, you analyzed the word nation by yourself, from a materialist viewpoint, and came to the conclusion that it only means what?

Why can't you use the historical materialist viewpoint to realize that Irish independence is not a struggle the working class should be in support of right now?
No, not by myself, by the contributions of Marxist thinkers such as Harry Haywood. Materialist analysis, though, goes over your head...you prefer to stick with dictionaries. :lol:


I'll give you a quote from Engels, in a letter to Bernstein, on the matter:

"We must co-operate in the work of setting the West European proletariat free and subordinate everything else to that goal. No matter how interesting the Balkan Slavs, etc., might be, the moment their desire for liberation clashes with the interests of the proletariat they can go hang for all I care. The Alsatians, too, are oppressed, and I shall be glad when we are once more quit of them. " - Engels.

So much for RIGHT to self determination, eh?
And when, precisely, are the rights of Irish workers clashing with the interests of the proletariat?

Have fun with that.


And you disagree with Marx on the Blakan Slavs and the Czechs, cause you believe in the RIGHT to self determination of all nations.
The reasons Marx gave for his position have no relevance to the question we're facing. So no, I don't disagree when it comes to that situation. If you were clever enough to read the quote you posted, Engels states his clear condition for not supporting the national struggles of certain peoples, something that hinges upon the circumstances at hand.


Being against a national liberation movement, or any independence movement, does not make one "anti-*insert nation here*". Fucking eejit.
Yeah, right...being against Irish independence is completely pro-Irish.

Great logic. Next you'll tell us that supporting Margaret Thatcher isn't anti-worker.


Ad hominems are fun....but you have to come up with some new ones...

"Your 'dialectical analysis' is that the denial of Quebecois sovereignty isn't as bad as Zionist brutality in Palestine. Some 'dialectical analysis', indeed! :lol:" - Manic Expression
:laugh: Of course, your abilities to analyze an argument are as poor as your abilities to analyze society. That's not me saying that the two are equal, that's me saying that one nation being oppressed more violently and brutally than another does not disqualify the second nation from its right to self-determination.

Coming from the same poster who can't even understand the Engels quote they post...this is quite typical.


No, you claimed you firmly believe, as the party you support does, in the RIGHT to self determination of all nations.
And since you can't figure it out...what are the reasons for Marx not supporting Czech nationhood? Something to do with demographics that no longer apply? Hmmm? Read it again and maybe you'll learn something.


It isn't fundamental to class struggle....that's the whole point. You ultra-right hack.
Ah, yes, opposing British imperialism isn't fundamental to class struggle. Great one. :lol:

[Die Rote Fahne]

You're either lying or running away from your own words. Either way, it's childish.

The middle-class does not exist in Marxian class analysis.

You wrote that.


See above.
Yes, I wrote that. Marx uses the term two or three times in the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto, congratulations, your a expert on Marxian theory.


Yes, and I showed you why those quotations were incorrect. You never responded to it because you don't actually have an argument here other than your disdain for the rights of Irish workers.Your response came about an hour later...I really doubt you got the initiative in that hour to read the whole of the work...mostly because your argument against it:

"Unfortunately, Rosa never explains why national liberation is "utopian", or why it would "go astray from the start". The assertion that national liberation is not in accordance with political realities is false, because the age of imperialism has made it an important aspect to oppress and subjugate nations for profit. The assertion that nationalist programs would subsume political ones is also incorrect, seeing as leaders of Irish Republican Socialism have been putting forth principled political programs for decades. The assertion that national liberation is "fruitless" is again incorrect, for the defeat of imperialism in one area of the world is a victory for the workers worldwide. In addition, workers are more effectively able to organize and pursue their interests if they are not under the heel of imperialist occupation (Iraq is a good example of this)."

Is very lacking. She, in fact does explain why "the right to self determination of all nations" is utopian, and why the phrase would go astray from the start.

Her assertion was that the idea of "the right to self-determination of all nations" is not in accordance with political reality.

For someone who has claimed to have read it, you sound like you haven't gone past the first page. Especially when your critique of the whole of the 140 page work of a Marxist theorist is a small paragraph which misses what she's talking about. As well as the fact that half of it came form "The Polish Question", which I also HIGHLY doubt you've tried to look at.


Nice come-back. :laugh:
It wasn't a come-back. It was a genuine materialist analysis of your condition.


No, not by myself, by the contributions of Marxist thinkers such as Harry Haywood. Materialist analysis, though, goes over your head...you prefer to stick with dictionaries. :lol:
So, Harry Haywood is the master of the English language, because he uses one of the definitions of the word nation?

Webster's Universal Dictionary: people of common territory, descent, culture, language, or history; people united under a single government.

The offer stands to ask Professor Chomsky's thoughts, I have some other questions I've been meaning to ask him.


And when, precisely, are the rights of Irish workers clashing with the interests of the proletariat?Who said the rights of the Irish workers are clashing with the interests of the proletariat. Their struggle for independence is.

inb4 "BUT THAT IS A RIGHT!!!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad:" you ultra-right loon.

It's funny, cause you haven't addressed the issue of the Balkan Slavs yet.



The reasons Marx gave for his position have no relevance to the question we're facing. So no, I don't disagree when it comes to that situation. If you were clever enough to read the quote you posted, Engels states his clear condition for not supporting the national struggles of certain peoples, something that hinges upon the circumstances at hand.You said you believe in all nations RIGHT to self determination...not much of a "right" if it only applies to some...


Yeah, right...being against Irish independence is completely pro-Irish.I'm not worried about being "pro-irish". I'm concerned with being pro-working class, of which there are Irish workers, Scottish workers, Rwandan workers, Mexican workers, Canadian workers, etc.


Great logic. Next you'll tell us that supporting Margaret Thatcher isn't anti-worker.That doesn't even make sense...

So, Marx was anti-Czech, anti-Slav...pfft..Marx got it piling up here.


:laugh: Of course, your abilities to analyze an argument are as poor as your abilities to analyze society. That's not me saying that the two are equal, that's me saying that one nation being oppressed more violently and brutally than another does not disqualify the second nation from its right to self-determination.It does, if that oppression is essentially nonexistant outside of said nations lack of independence.

The point of your quote is that Quebec's struggle is EQUAL to the struggle of Palestinians...asshat.


Coming from the same poster who can't even understand the Engels quote they post...this is quite typical.You totally missed WHY I posted it didn't you?


And since you can't figure it out...what are the reasons for Marx not supporting Czech nationhood? Something to do with demographics that no longer apply? Hmmm? Read it again and maybe you'll learn something.
Yes, I understand why, you git, the point is that you claim he supports THE FUCKING RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION OF ALL NATIONS.


Ah, yes, opposing British imperialism isn't fundamental to class struggle. Great one. :lol:WHAT BRITISH IMPERIALISM YOU FUCKING METH HOUND?

Boohoo, Northern Ireland is a part of Great Britain...boohooo...IMMA WAVE MY GREEN WHITE AND ORANGE!!!!

How bout you wave your red, and stuggle alongside the british worker, which is VERY VERY VERY possible to do, rather than wast your time whining how you Irish have it so bad "under the heel" of british imperialism.


YOU FUCKING CHILD.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Jeez, I think you both need to chill out.

ManicExpression:

(1) Under what criterion should nationalist struggle be supported? I know you do not support national sovereignty or increased autonomy for minorities in the PRC even though there are many residents of those areas demanding it and even though Chinese capital exploits resources and labor in their area. Do you support Kosovar nationalism too? What about Kurdish? The Kurds in Iran are very brutally repressed by the Iranian government, but (if I remember correctly) you denied the Imperialist nature of the Iranian government in that part of the world.

(2) What criterion are you using to define "nation" such that the Palestinians are one and the Israelis are not?

(3) Why can't the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish working class have a single united and liberated body, especially when so many Irish live in Britain and British people live in Ireland, and when there has been so much interbreeding between the two?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Jeez, I think you both need to chill out.

ManicExpression:

(1) Under what criterion should nationalist struggle be supported? I know you do not support national sovereignty or increased autonomy for minorities in the PRC even though there are many residents of those areas demanding it and even though Chinese capital exploits resources and labor in their area. Do you support Kosovar nationalism too? What about Kurdish? The Kurds in Iran are very brutally repressed by the Iranian government, but (if I remember correctly) you denied the Imperialist nature of the Iranian government in that part of the world.

(2) What criterion are you using to define "nation" such that the Palestinians are one and the Israelis are not?

(3) Why can't the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish working class have a single united and liberated body, especially when so many Irish live in Britain and British people live in Ireland, and when there has been so much interbreeding between the two?
I was chilled until that post....

[manic expression]

Yes, I wrote that. Marx uses the term two or three times in the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto, congratulations, your a expert on Marxian theory.
Congratulations, you're wrong. Get used to it.


Your response came about an hour later...I really doubt you got the initiative in that hour to read the whole of the work...mostly because your argument against it:

Is very lacking. She, in fact does explain why "the right to self determination of all nations" is utopian, and why the phrase would go astray from the start.

Her assertion was that the idea of "the right to self-determination of all nations" is not in accordance with political reality.

For someone who has claimed to have read it, you sound like you haven't gone past the first page. Especially when your critique of the whole of the 140 page work of a Marxist theorist is a small paragraph which misses what she's talking about. As well as the fact that half of it came form "The Polish Question", which I also HIGHLY doubt you've tried to look at.
Again, we see that you're unable to respond to my points. I pointed out what was wrong about Luxemburg's argument that you posted and you haven't managed to address it except for "lol u didnt reed it lol". Sorry, but that doesn't fly. I'll wait for you to make an actual argument.


It wasn't a come-back. It was a genuine materialist analysis of your condition.
That's your idea of "a genuine materialist analysis"? :laugh::laugh::laugh: That explains a lot.


So, Harry Haywood is the master of the English language,
That's not the point, the point is that he's analyzed the national question as Marxist and not as an academic of the English language.


Webster's Universal Dictionary: people of common territory, descent, culture, language, or history; people united under a single government.
The second definition there is a false one, it's anti-materialist.


Who said the rights of the Irish workers are clashing with the interests of the proletariat. Their struggle for independence is.
The struggle in Northern Ireland is a struggle for independence of the Irish people. It doesn't clash with the interests of the proletariat because it's a fight against imperialism, whose defeat would be a victory for all nations.


It's funny, cause you haven't addressed the issue of the Balkan Slavs yet.
Except I have. Engels specifically stated that he wouldn't support that struggle only if it clashed with the interests of the proletariat at large.

Have you demonstrated that this is the case with Ireland? No. Have you demonstrated any consistency between the issue at hand and your example? No. Sorry, you lose.


You said you believe in all nations RIGHT to self determination...not much of a "right" if it only applies to some...
Yes, it is a right, and it applies to all nations. That doesn't mean there are specific circumstances that make a specific manifestation of national independence negative. However, in the age of imperialism, things have changed...we're not dealing with the Austrian-Hungarian Empire anymore (perhaps you didn't notice).

To take Yugoslavia as an example, no progressive could say that s/he opposes what Tito and the Partizans did in defeating fascism and bringing about a socialist Yugoslavia. This guarded the self-determination of those nations against the Nazis and their Ustaze underlings. At the same time, no progressive could say that s/he supports what Tudman did in the 90's, which was promote the "independence" of Croatia through alliances with imperialism and suppression of the rights of Serbs and other peoples.

Your ultra-left nonsense leads you to believe that none of the above struggles meant anything, that the Partizans were no different from Tudman or indeed the Ustaze. It is this idiotic assumption that sinks your anti-progressive non-arguments once and for all.


I'm not worried about being "pro-irish". I'm concerned with being pro-working class, of which there are Irish workers, Scottish workers, Rwandan workers, Mexican workers, Canadian workers, etc.
Pro-working class means being pro-Irish...pro-Irish against imperialist oppression.


That doesn't even make sense...
Think about it for a change.


So, Marx was anti-Czech, anti-Slav...pfft..
Not at all. He pointed out how Czech independence in the 1800's would have necessitated a denial of the rights of Germans living in that region. The part about Yugoslavia was Engels, and I already explained that.


It does, if that oppression is essentially nonexistant outside of said nations lack of independence.
Yes, outside of the suppression of self-determination, there's no oppression. :lol::lol::lol::lol: Great logic.


The point of your quote is that Quebec's struggle is EQUAL to the struggle of Palestinians...asshat.
:laugh::laugh::laugh: That's not what I said, I was actually refuting that assumption of yours. Try reading it next time, child.


Yes, I understand why, you git, the point is that you claim he supports THE FUCKING RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION OF ALL NATIONS.



WHAT BRITISH IMPERIALISM YOU FUCKING METH HOUND?

Boohoo, Northern Ireland is a part of Great Britain...boohooo...IMMA WAVE MY GREEN WHITE AND ORANGE!!!!

How bout you wave your red, and stuggle alongside the british worker, which is VERY VERY VERY possible to do, rather than wast your time whining how you Irish have it so bad "under the heel" of british imperialism.


YOU FUCKING CHILD.
Awwww, someone's gwetting upset. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh:

What's wrong, kid? Frustrated that your ultra-left garbage keeps getting exposed for the anti-Irish crap that it is? Mad about the fact that you couldn't recognize oppression if it came up to you and thanked you for your generous support?

Keep apologizing for imperialism, it really helps us know on which side you stand. :lol:

[manic expression]

(1) Under what criterion should nationalist struggle be supported? I know you do not support national sovereignty or increased autonomy for minorities in the PRC even though there are many residents of those areas demanding it and even though Chinese capital exploits resources and labor in their area. Do you support Kosovar nationalism too? What about Kurdish? The Kurds in Iran are very brutally repressed by the Iranian government, but (if I remember correctly) you denied the Imperialist nature of the Iranian government in that part of the world.
National struggles should be supported as they align with the interests of the working class generally. This also means that when national struggles are opposed to imperialism, they are to be supported; when they are part-in-parcel of imperialist ambition in a part of the world, they are not to be so supported.

However, just because one doesn't support a national movement or organization doesn't mean one isn't in support of the right of that nation to self-determination. For instance, just because I oppose the Ustaze doesn't mean I oppose Croatian self-determination, it just means I am against the fascist aims of that tendency (in no small part because it holds as an intrinsic quality the suppression of the rights of other nations for self-determination). Likewise, just because I support Irish independence doesn't mean I would be in support of the Blueshirts.

The fallacy, which is extremely popular among ultra-lefts as shown by our good friend Die Rote Fahne, to make no distinction between the right of a nation to self-determination and the specific circumstances in which independence may play out is really what must be questioned.

As for the examples you pointed out: the PRC already guarantees national autonomy for its various nationalities to the point of giving them privileges over the Han majority (such as exemption to the so-called "one child policy"). Supporting Iranian struggles against imperialism doesn't mean I think the Kurds shouldn't have self-determination...it means that I am wary of how imperialism is trying to use the Kurds for its own benefit. We can see this in the history of the issue quite clearly: the US was singing the praises of Kurdish separatists in Iraq but wouldn't pluck a hair for those in Turkey.


(2) What criterion are you using to define "nation" such that the Palestinians are one and the Israelis are not?
Let's employ this definition:

A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

Palestine meets this criterion while Israel does not. Israelis are made up of immigrants from many nations, and who all retain those cultural identities while "Israelis". Being "Israeli" is based on being a Zionist and nothing more. Further, it is not a stable community, since it exists solely due to imperialist backing. If all US aid to Israel stopped tomorrow, the entire thing could fall down by this Sunday.

Much to the contrary, being a Palestinian is based on what we see above.


(3) Why can't the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish working class have a single united and liberated body, especially when so many Irish live in Britain and British people live in Ireland, and when there has been so much interbreeding between the two?
I would be very much open to what was done in Yugoslavia, with one united and liberated body, but with clear and appropriate distinctions made between the various nationalities. This isn't so much different than what we see in the USSR or the PRC, although it was not always followed so closely (the USSR violated its principles when it came to "Russification" in Belarus and Ukraine). That being said, what you propose cannot be demanded, and would have to be done with the full and express consent of the Irish, Welsh, Scottish and English workers. If even one of those rejects such a structure then it must not be foisted upon them.

Also, "interbreeding" has no relevance for my purposes. The whole point of the Marxist analysis of national identity is that it's not based on ethnicity.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Congratulations, you're wrong. Get used to it.
I'm wrong because Marx uses it twice in the Communist Manifesto, Once referring to Guild Masters and Artisans?

Anyone can be wrong about a point. You need to, however, provide substantial evidence that middle class is used frequently by him. My point, originally on the topic, was that it was not a part of the main class analysis of Marxism: Proletarian, bourgeois, petit-bourgeois.


Again, we see that you're unable to respond to my points. I pointed out what was wrong about Luxemburg's argument that you posted and you haven't managed to address it except for "lol u didnt reed it lol". Sorry, but that doesn't fly. I'll wait for you to make an actual argument.You actually didn't though. The points you made didn't even correspond to her argument.


That's your idea of "a genuine materialist analysis"? :laugh::laugh::laugh: That explains a lot.Yes, you are a moron.



That's not the point, the point is that he's analyzed the national question as Marxist and not as an academic of the English language.So did Luxemburg...that, however, is besides the point. The point is that you claim that the dictionary definition of every word is anti-materialist.



The second definition there is a false one, it's anti-materialist.How?

If that is anti-materialist, why is the idea of "rights" not anti-materialist?


The struggle in Northern Ireland is a struggle for independence of the Irish people. It doesn't clash with the interests of the proletariat because it's a fight against imperialism, whose defeat would be a victory for all nations.It does clash because the "imperialism" you claim you will defeat is essentially non-existent. Aside from that it detracts and distracts from the struggle against capital. My point since the beginning



Except I have. Engels specifically stated that he wouldn't support that struggle only if it clashed with the interests of the proletariat at large.Congrats, you can read. That is my point. You claim they believed in "the right to all nations to self-determination"...which they do not...Luxemburg has supported national liberation struggles as well as opposed others as well.



Have you demonstrated that this is the case with Ireland? No. Have you demonstrated any consistency between the issue at hand and your example? No. Sorry, you lose.Yes, I have. See above.



Yes, it is a right, and it applies to all nations. That doesn't mean there are specific circumstances that make a specific manifestation of national independence negative. However, in the age of imperialism, things have changed...we're not dealing with the Austrian-Hungarian Empire anymore (perhaps you didn't notice).

To take Yugoslavia as an example, no progressive could say that s/he opposes what Tito and the Partizans did in defeating fascism and bringing about a socialist Yugoslavia. This guarded the self-determination of those nations against the Nazis and their Ustaze underlings. At the same time, no progressive could say that s/he supports what Tudman did in the 90's, which was promote the "independence" of Croatia through alliances with imperialism and suppression of the rights of Serbs and other peoples.Yes, each situation needs to be analyzed. That has been the point Rosa and I have been making since the start. That a "right" is anti-materialist, and if you aren't going to apply it to all situations, you can't call it a "right".



Pro-working class means being pro-Irish...pro-Irish against imperialist oppression.No, it actually doesn't. It means ignoring the idea of national interests in support of international class interests.



Think about it for a change.If only you knew what think actually meant.



Not at all. He pointed out how Czech independence in the 1800's would have necessitated a denial of the rights of Germans living in that region. The part about Yugoslavia was Engels, and I already explained that.
Yes, ergo, it is no longer a "RIGHT" for all nations to self-determination, but only to certain situations.


Yes, outside of the suppression of self-determination, there's no oppression. :lol::lol::lol::lol: Great logic.So, could you please describe the oppression? Are the Irish denied suffrage, food, water, electricity, schooling? What? Are they blockaded? Embargoed? Under the threat of military operations and checkpoints? Are workers of N.Ireland prevented from being in a union with an English, Scottish or Welsh worker?



:laugh::laugh::laugh: That's not what I said, I was actually refuting that assumption of yours. Try reading it next time, child.You have to clarify then. Your quote came after I said I don't support Quebecois independence based on a dialectical analysis of it, and it's relation to working class emancipation. In which, you responded:

'Your "dialectical analysis" is that the denial of Quebecois sovereignty isn't as bad as Zionist brutality in Palestine. Some "dialectical analysis", indeed! :lol:'

Which says, outright, that I'm wrong because I don't think Quebec's non sovereignty is as bad as what the Palestinians are going through. It's quite clear what you said.



Awwww, someone's gwetting upset. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh:Frustrated at your ignorance and anti-worker, anti-marxist, anti-materialist, ultra right wing extremist, class collaborationist, corporatist views.


What's wrong, kid? Frustrated that your ultra-left garbage keeps getting exposed for the anti-Irish crap that it is? Mad about the fact that you couldn't recognize oppression if it came up to you and thanked you for your generous support?Once again...boohoo, N. Ireland is a part of Great Britain, boohoo. You still can't tell me what oppression is occuring, BESIDES the "oppression" of being a part of GB.


Keep apologizing for imperialism, it really helps us know on which side you stand. :lol:Keep being a class collaborationist. It Really helps us know whose side you aren't on.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Manic, I need to make some points that you seem unclear of:



You claim to support the right to self determination of all nations. Yet you seem to defend Marx and Engels when they deny this right to the Czechs and the Balkan Slavs. When they did this, were they apologizing for imperialism of the Germans or the Turks?
You claim that Marx and Engels support this "right", yet I have shown you that they do not.
My point isn't that all national liberation struggles are bad, or should be opposed. My point is, as you seemed to have supported when Marx and Engels did it, that each situation needs to be analyzed. Some national liberation struggles should be supported, whilst others are a waste of time, or purely reactionary and dangerous.
Another point; the largest parties in support of Irish Independence are Social Democratic parties. Sinn Fein, and the SDLP. That means they are capitalist parties. The wide range of support for Irish independence is not socialist or revolutionary leftist. It is liberal and petit-bourgeois. If the Irish revolutionaries weren't too busy whining for independence, they would have more workers in support of socialism, which is the only answer to Ireland's national liberation.

[manic expression]

I'm wrong because Marx uses it twice in the Communist Manifesto, Once referring to Guild Masters and Artisans?
You're not only wrong because you said that talking about the middle class is un-Marxist, you're wrong because you think he uses it twice. :lol:


Anyone can be wrong about a point.You'd know a thing or two about that, wouldn't you.


You actually didn't though. The points you made didn't even correspond to her argument.Except they do. Address my arguments or be held as an ultra-left hack.


Yes, you are a moron.Nice "materialist analysis". Just make sure you don't mention the middle class like Marx does...that'd be un-Marxist. :laugh:


So did Luxemburg...that, however, is besides the point. The point is that you claim that the dictionary definition of every word is anti-materialist.Luxemburg is incorrect on this question and I explained to you why that's the case.

And that's not what I'm claiming, I'm claiming that dictionary definitions sometimes go against what we know from a materialist study of the world. That's why the dictionary definition for "revolution" is wrong.


How?

If that is anti-materialist, why is the idea of "rights" not anti-materialist?It's anti-materialist because nations do not always correspond to nation-states. If that were the case, then the Basques would be Castillian and French just because they exist within the borders controlled by those states. That's why it's anti-materialist.

Rights of self-determination are materialist because they align with a materialist understanding of the national question.


It does clash because the "imperialism" you claim you will defeat is essentially non-existent. Aside from that it detracts and distracts from the struggle against capital. My point since the beginning"Essentially non-existent"? Why, because you said so? Because it's not as bad as other acts of imperialism? The fact of the matter is that the UK is an imperialist power, and that its occupation of Ireland is a denial of Irish self-determination through the use of that imperialist power.

If the UK isn't imperialist, what is it? Middle class?


Congrats, you can read. That is my point. You claim they believed in "the right to all nations to self-determination"...which they do not...Luxemburg has supported national liberation struggles as well as opposed others as well.I've already explained why these are not applicable examples. I'm not sure why you keep ignoring those facts.


Yes, each situation needs to be analyzed. That has been the point Rosa and I have been making since the start. That a "right" is anti-materialist, and if you aren't going to apply it to all situations, you can't call it a "right".No, a right applies to certain circumstances. There is no right to denying the self-determination of other nations, which is what Marx was speaking of when referring to the German population of the "Czech lands".


No, it actually doesn't. It means ignoring the idea of national interests in support of international class interests.The two are one in the same. As it stands, any promotion of Irish independence is progress for the proletariat, and any progress for the proletariat promotes Irish independence.


If only you knew what think actually meant.Let me guess, it has something to do with being middle class. :D


Yes, ergo, it is no longer a "RIGHT" for all nations to self-determination, but only to certain situations.Wrong. If an application of "self-determination" goes against the self-determination of other nationalities (which isn't what Marx was speaking of, but of statehood for Czechs in lands that they claimed as their own but actually belonged to other nationalities) or is not aligned with any actual nation (like Israel) or is subverted to imperialist control (like the recent attempt at separatism in Bolivia), then those constitute quite different matters.

I've already explained this. Just because I oppose the Ustaze doesn't mean I oppose Croatian self-determination. They are not indivisible, and you seem to forget that.


So, could you please describe the oppression? Are the Irish denied suffrage, food, water, electricity, schooling? What? Are they blockaded? Embargoed? Under the threat of military operations and checkpoints? Are workers of N.Ireland prevented from being in a union with an English, Scottish or Welsh worker?Um, read a history book. The Catholic population of occupied Ireland was subject to a great deal of violence, brutality, denial of any voice in society, summary executions for living in a non-Catholic area, arbitrary imprisonment and more.

There's a reason why this isn't the case anymore. Want to venture to guess? Anyone? Come on, don't be shy.

Oh yeah, it's changed because of the struggles of the Irish progressives that you so foolishly oppose.

Get the picture? You've been talking smack about the Irish workers who fought and bled so that Irish Catholics might be able to live without fear of bigoted, fascist violence. Well done, we know what side you're on.


You have to clarify then. Your quote came after I said I don't support Quebecois independence based on a dialectical analysis of it, and it's relation to working class emancipation. In which, you responded:

'Your "dialectical analysis" is that the denial of Quebecois sovereignty isn't as bad as Zionist brutality in Palestine. Some "dialectical analysis", indeed! :lol:'

Which says, outright, that I'm wrong because I don't think Quebec's non sovereignty is as bad as what the Palestinians are going through. It's quite clear what you said.It's amazing how you can't even honestly read a quote. Let's analyze this, for the sake of the weaker mind in this thread.

Your "dialectical analysis" is that the denial of Quebecois sovereignty isn't as bad as Zionist brutality in Palestine. Some "dialectical analysis", indeed!

Get it? It's quite obvious what I'm saying and what I'm not saying to anyone who can read something honestly. There, I said that your observation of the fact that suppression of Quebecois sovereignty isn't as bad as Zionist brutality in Palestine does not mean that Quebec isn't suppressed in some manner. Sure, it's not as bad as Palestine, that's easy to see, but that doesn't make much difference when it comes to the facts of Quebec. You're using third-worldist logic, in that you might as well say that since Swedish workers aren't as badly oppressed as Indonesian workers, there's no need to oppose capitalism in Sweden. Except, no, that's crap, because both are oppressed even if one is more oppressed than the other.

Is that clear or do I need to draw you a picture?


Frustrated at your ignorance and anti-worker, anti-marxist, anti-materialist, ultra right wing extremist, class collaborationist, corporatist views.

Once again...boohoo, N. Ireland is a part of Great Britain, boohoo. You still can't tell me what oppression is occuring, BESIDES the "oppression" of being a part of GB.

Keep being a class collaborationist. It Really helps us know whose side you aren't on.:laugh: It's great how you shamelessly apologize for imperialism and defend the ruling class in one paragraph and then tell me I'm "class collaborationist" in the next. For those keeping score at home, you're the one who's been standing with imperialism, denying that it's a bad thing for workers and that the problem in occupied Ireland isn't British imperialism (which you celebrate and defend) but those who fought for the basic dignity of all.

So again, keep telling us how imperialism isn't a problem, it shows what side you're on. After all, you only left out one color, "Die Georgkreuz Fahne".

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

National struggles should be supported as they align with the interests of the working class generally. This also means that when national struggles are opposed to imperialism, they are to be supported; when they are part-in-parcel of imperialist ambition in a part of the world, they are not to be so supported.

However, just because one doesn't support a national movement or organization doesn't mean one isn't in support of the right of that nation to self-determination. For instance, just because I oppose the Ustaze doesn't mean I oppose Croatian self-determination, it just means I am against the fascist aims of that tendency (in no small part because it holds as an intrinsic quality the suppression of the rights of other nations for self-determination). Likewise, just because I support Irish independence doesn't mean I would be in support of the Blueshirts.

The fallacy, which is extremely popular among ultra-lefts as shown by our good friend Die Rote Fahne, to make no distinction between the right of a nation to self-determination and the specific circumstances in which independence may play out is really what must be questioned.


Part of the problem might be the whole language of "rights"-I'm not a militant anti-idealist but many who are think that talking about rights is idealistic bourgeois claptrap. This is hardly an isolated view in the Marxist world though and would not make DRF "ultra left"

Here's another tricky question though, just because a nationalist demand is being exploited by Imperialists, does that make the nationalist demand any less legitimate? Does it make them any less repressed? I don't think it's fair to throw Kurds under the bus just because the US happens to exploit their tragedy.

Your argument about supporting liberation in the abstract without supporting particular movements seems more than reasonable but there are cases in history of the bourgeois using national liberation as an opportunity to seize power. Many of these nationalist movements have just gone to create a strong national bourgeois which can be just as repressive, and often ends up getting bought out by Imperialists at a later date anyways (and thus become an extension for neocolonial power)



As for the examples you pointed out: the PRC already guarantees national autonomy for its various nationalities to the point of giving them privileges over the Han majority (such as exemption to the so-called "one child policy"). Supporting Iranian struggles against imperialism doesn't mean I think the Kurds shouldn't have self-determination...it means that I am wary of how imperialism is trying to use the Kurds for its own benefit. We can see this in the history of the issue quite clearly: the US was singing the praises of Kurdish separatists in Iraq but wouldn't pluck a hair for those in Turkey.
Many Tibetans feel that the "Autonomous" Tibetan area should be larger than it is, much as many Irish people feel that Ireland should include the northern part. The traditional areas of Tibet are much larger than the TAR, and include many areas with a Tibetan majority or which until recently had a Tibetan majority. They also feel that the extent of autonomy doesn't go nearly far enough, and that the PRC government still extends many repressive policies over their territory. While I'm sure they appreciate exemption from rules on how many children you can have I think their demands are much deeper. You later say that these kinds of systems shouldn't be forced on a population either, but there's never been a plebiscite or anything like that to see whether the Tibetans want to pursue their own socialism or China's socialism.

I agree about the fact that the US is selective in separatists in supports but all nation-states with interests have behaved in such a manner. That shouldn't change the characteristics on the ground for the minorities in question. Iranian, Iraqi and Turkish Kurds all deserve a single state, and not because of any metaphysical Kurdish relationship to that land but because none of those three countries have ever treated the Kurdish people with equality and respect, or made the slightest effort to make their language and culture included in the mainstream. The USA is opportunistic in the movements it supports, but that opportunism on their part shouldn't justify an inverted opportunism on the part of others.


Let's employ this definition:

A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

Palestine meets this criterion while Israel does not. Israelis are made up of immigrants from many nations, and who all retain those cultural identities while "Israelis". Being "Israeli" is based on being a Zionist and nothing more. Further, it is not a stable community, since it exists solely due to imperialist backing. If all US aid to Israel stopped tomorrow, the entire thing could fall down by this Sunday.

Much to the contrary, being a Palestinian is based on what we see above.Israelis are often immigrants but many are second, third or fourth generation at this point. I know Israelis who speak Hebrew in their families and are culturally quite alienated from the nations in which their grandparents lived. They have a common culture although there are some major divisions based on national lines (ie between Ashkanazi and Russian and Mizrahi. They also have a common language in the form of Hebrew. As for the US, yes the USA protects the Israeli state which would be in serious trouble without that support, but that doesn't change the fact that there are still some odd 4-6 million Hebrew speaking non-Arabs living between the Jordan River and the coast.

The thing that makes the case of the Palestinians interesting is that, much like the Israelis, no such sense of identity existed a century ago. The word Palestine comes from the Philistines, a group culturally unrelated to the current residents of the area. It had Arab residents, but was no more distinct of a region than any other in that part of the world. The levant went from Egypt and Ottoman Turkey and back again, and the Arab residents were no more particularly distinct than any other group. If someone in 1914 accepted the definition which you give, they would seem to be a part of the much larger Arab nation and therefore wrapped up in the nationalist dream of a united Arab Republic, not a distinct Palestinian one. Of course, there were Arab residents in the area, and they are the ancestors of the current population, but there doesn't seem to have been much of a sense of the Arabs in that part of the world existing as a social entity distinct from Arabs everywhere else.

A Palestinian nation does exist of course but it exists from the common experience of their land being given to Israel and their struggle against them. So in that respect, both the Palestinians and Israelis have equal claim of the status of a "nation", merely fairly young nations coming out of a period of unstable social and political circumstances. In that respect a binational state is the best arrangement.


I would be very much open to what was done in Yugoslavia, with one united and liberated body, but with clear and appropriate distinctions made between the various nationalities. This isn't so much different than what we see in the USSR or the PRC, although it was not always followed so closely (the USSR violated its principles when it came to "Russification" in Belarus and Ukraine). That being said, what you propose cannot be demanded, and would have to be done with the full and express consent of the Irish, Welsh, Scottish and English workers. If even one of those rejects such a structure then it must not be foisted upon them.Yugoslavia and the USSR both had a horrible problem with resurgent nationalism however, as evidenced by the eventual civil war in Yugoslavia and independence movements in the 15 SSRs. I think their model, as well as that of the PRC, is riddled with internal contradictions, or at least unforseen pitfalls. The cultural, political and social autonomy of various peoples must be protected without creating an opportunity for those voices who see these divisions as absolute, or those who want to push the demographic majority as a hegemonic culture.

The Irish shouldn't be told to live in a plurinational system, the Irish are free to do what they want. But in a certain respect it would be the final victory of the British Imperialists-that their divide and rule caused such division and hate between two people that they couldn't be reconciled to work together against the common enemy. It is ultimately the cultural scars of Imperial mismanagement, not anything essential, which divides these two populations. Either way, the same group of plutocrats are repressing the Irish in the Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland and the British too. The Queen is an irrelevant figurehead as far as modern exploitation is concerned.

[manic expression]

Part of the problem might be the whole language of "rights"-I'm not a militant anti-idealist but many who are think that talking about rights is idealistic bourgeois claptrap. This is hardly an isolated view in the Marxist world though and would not make DRF "ultra left"

Here's another tricky question though, just because a nationalist demand is being exploited by Imperialists, does that make the nationalist demand any less legitimate? Does it make them any less repressed? I don't think it's fair to throw Kurds under the bus just because the US happens to exploit their tragedy.

Your argument about supporting liberation in the abstract without supporting particular movements seems more than reasonable but there are cases in history of the bourgeois using national liberation as an opportunity to seize power. Many of these nationalist movements have just gone to create a strong national bourgeois which can be just as repressive, and often ends up getting bought out by Imperialists at a later date anyways (and thus become an extension for neocolonial power)
You know, the point about "rights" is worth discussing. You're right that the conception of most "rights" is largely bourgeois nonsense...but there are concrete rights that do exist...the right to self-defense, for instance. So long as such a right is grounded in material reality and not in the abstract, I think the issue is avoided.

The claim of nationalists to self-determination is oftentimes secondary. After all, it's really actions, not words, that define a movement. Lots of fascists can talk all day about "self-determination", but in reality their goal is the suppression of everyone else's self-determination, along with the suppression of the workers of the world. Therefore, we can't support any old organization just because they claim they stand for self-determination...the imperialist-backed Kurdish nationalists in Iraq have shown little remorse over the expulsion of Turcomans from areas of their control, for instance.

But like I said, this doesn't disqualify that nation from having a legitimate claim to exactly that. Just because I oppose the imperialist collaborators among Kurdish nationalists doesn't mean Kurds don't have a completely legitimate claim to self-determination.

On your last point, it's definitely true what you say about the bourgeoisie. The Irish War of Independence led to the establishment of a bourgeois state, one that was far from progressive even by bourgeois standards. However, I think the Irish workers have been able to make progress since the defeat of British imperialism in the majority of Ireland...if we ask our Irish comrades on this forum, I'm quite confident many (if not most) of them would confirm that, and say that independence was a progressive step. That's really what we're talking about, the removal of imperialist power and a step forward for workers.


Many Tibetans feel that the "Autonomous" Tibetan area should be larger than it is, much as many Irish people feel that Ireland should include the northern part. The traditional areas of Tibet are much larger than the TAR, and include many areas with a Tibetan majority or which until recently had a Tibetan majority. They also feel that the extent of autonomy doesn't go nearly far enough, and that the PRC government still extends many repressive policies over their territory. While I'm sure they appreciate exemption from rules on how many children you can have I think their demands are much deeper. You later say that these kinds of systems shouldn't be forced on a population either, but there's never been a plebiscite or anything like that to see whether the Tibetans want to pursue their own socialism or China's socialism.

I agree about the fact that the US is selective in separatists in supports but all nation-states with interests have behaved in such a manner. That shouldn't change the characteristics on the ground for the minorities in question. Iranian, Iraqi and Turkish Kurds all deserve a single state, and not because of any metaphysical Kurdish relationship to that land but because none of those three countries have ever treated the Kurdish people with equality and respect, or made the slightest effort to make their language and culture included in the mainstream. The USA is opportunistic in the movements it supports, but that opportunism on their part shouldn't justify an inverted opportunism on the part of others.
The "traditional" area of Tibet reminds me quite a bit of "Greater Hungary"...yeah, they used to have an empire that made some conquests, but those terms don't exactly apply anymore.

As far as other issues related to Tibet, there's a lot of misinformation out there. The "Free (Feudal) Tibet" crowd celebrates a monarchy and opposes the line of progressive Tibetans like that of Sitar, a former serf and important member of the CPC. I think it's reasonable to suggest that most Tibetans support what the PRC has put in place since the liberation of Tibet, most opposition to the PRC has been marginal at best...and we can't forget that it was a matter of liberation from the start, the PLA literally enforced manumission of serfs there.


Israelis are often immigrants but many are second, third or fourth generation at this point. I know Israelis who speak Hebrew in their families and are culturally quite alienated from the nations in which their grandparents lived. They have a common culture although there are some major divisions based on national lines (ie between Ashkanazi and Russian and Mizrahi. They also have a common language in the form of Hebrew. As for the US, yes the USA protects the Israeli state which would be in serious trouble without that support, but that doesn't change the fact that there are still some odd 4-6 million Hebrew speaking non-Arabs living between the Jordan River and the coast.
That's exactly what I mean...the Ashkanazi and Russian and Mizrahi are not the same, so what's the only thing tying them together? Zionism and an imperialist-backed puppet state. Also, the US doesn't just protect the Zionist state, it's the only reason it exists. The 4-6 million Jews who are there now can certainly be a part of any post-Israeli setup, much like South Africa has done since the defeat of that apartheid.


The thing that makes the case of the Palestinians interesting is that, much like the Israelis, no such sense of identity existed a century ago. The word Palestine comes from the Philistines, a group culturally unrelated to the current residents of the area. It had Arab residents, but was no more distinct of a region than any other in that part of the world. The levant went from Egypt and Ottoman Turkey and back again, and the Arab residents were no more particularly distinct than any other group. If someone in 1914 accepted the definition which you give, they would seem to be a part of the much larger Arab nation and therefore wrapped up in the nationalist dream of a united Arab Republic, not a distinct Palestinian one. Of course, there were Arab residents in the area, and they are the ancestors of the current population, but there doesn't seem to have been much of a sense of the Arabs in that part of the world existing as a social entity distinct from Arabs everywhere else.

A Palestinian nation does exist of course but it exists from the common experience of their land being given to Israel and their struggle against them. So in that respect, both the Palestinians and Israelis have equal claim of the status of a "nation", merely fairly young nations coming out of a period of unstable social and political circumstances. In that respect a binational state is the best arrangement.
No, no. Palestinians have existed as a nation much longer than that, IMO. It's not like they woke up one morning in the 1940's and realized they had a common history. It goes back to at least the mid-1800's, if not earlier. You talk about the etymology of the word, but France comes from "Franks", who aren't around anymore...same goes for Alemania or even Belgium.

You do have a point that "Syrian" or "Iraqi" were quite arbitrarily created by British imperialist cartographers playing "let's redraw the middle east" one Sunday morning. You could say that Levantine Arabs have all the requirements to be considered a nation...but if I grant you that, what changes? Replace "Palestinian" with "Levantine Arabs made perpetual refugees by Zionist ethnic cleansing" and the demand for self-determination and a redress of land theft stands just as it did before.

Still, like I said, any and all Jews would definitely have a peaceful and dignified place in a post-Israel setup, and just about all Palestinians have said as much. In that I agree with you wholeheartedly.


Yugoslavia and the USSR both had a horrible problem with resurgent nationalism however, as evidenced by the eventual civil war in Yugoslavia and independence movements in the 15 SSRs. I think their model, as well as that of the PRC, is riddled with internal contradictions, or at least unforseen pitfalls. The cultural, political and social autonomy of various peoples must be protected without creating an opportunity for those voices who see these divisions as absolute, or those who want to push the demographic majority as a hegemonic culture.

The Irish shouldn't be told to live in a plurinational system, the Irish are free to do what they want. But in a certain respect it would be the final victory of the British Imperialists-that their divide and rule caused such division and hate between two people that they couldn't be reconciled to work together against the common enemy. It is ultimately the cultural scars of Imperial mismanagement, not anything essential, which divides these two populations. Either way, the same group of plutocrats are repressing the Irish in the Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland and the British too. The Queen is an irrelevant figurehead as far as modern exploitation is concerned.
We can hardly blame socialist Yugoslavia for what occurred in its dying days...it was imperialist meddling (spearheaded by the World Bank and co) that funded right-wing monsters and spread the seeds of hatred. I had heard most people in Yugoslavia were quite positive about Tito and his policies, but even I was surprised at the respect with which Yugoslavs talked about Tito when I visited there. The tragedy that occurred there is a textbook example of imperialism doing what it does: giving the reigns of power to lunatics and denying the people any voice.

On Ireland and possible unity with the rest of the British Isles, that's something bear in mind...but remember that even if there wasn't a united state across the British Isles, relations between socialist states there would be better than good. It would simply be a matter of Irish workers deciding to retain their independence, understanding that the age of human society without states or borders is the ultimate goal. And anyway, a united European state wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility, so it might even be a moot point.

[Invader Zim]

Jesus. Are you guys still going at it? I have an honest question for both of you. Have any of you three actually been to Ireland or the UK?


but there are concrete rights that do exist

This is a very interesting point of discussion and I would like to offer an alternative point of view, if only for the purposes of debate and, in some ways, proposing a devils advocate position. Rights do not exist in 'nature'. They are an artifical concept that are dictated by the culture in which they were formed. You cite the right to self defence and contend that it is an inherent right yet this is in fact one of those rights which is among the most arbitrary and subjective. If an individual breaks into my home am I at liberty to take any action to protect my self not limited to extremes such as braining him with a hammer a dozen times? Or is this right to self defence limited to the confines of necessary force?

[manic expression]

Jesus. Are you guys still going at it? I have an honest question for both of you. Have any of you three actually been to Ireland or the UK?
I've been to the UK...never Ireland.


This is a very interesting point of discussion and I would like to offer an alternative point of view, if only for the purposes of debate and, in some ways, proposing a devils advocate position. Rights do not exist in 'nature'. They are an artifical concept that are dictated by the culture in which they were formed. You cite the right to self defence and contend that it is an inherent right yet this is in fact one of those rights which is among the most arbitrary and subjective. If an individual breaks into my home am I at liberty to take any action to protect my self not limited to extremes such as braining him with a hammer a dozen times? Or is this right to self defence limited to the confines of necessary force?
Well, I never said they are drawn from nature or a state of nature or anything like that...I'm talking of human societies. This is especially true because of the fact that the definition of nationality that I'm using has everything to do with human society (call it "artificial" if you wish) and the dynamics found therein.

On self defense, there's no universal rule on that...or at least if there is one I'm not wise enough to know what it is. This is only amplified in the confusion of conflict. Still, I don't think many would argue that people under attack are unjustified in taking action to defend themselves and those they care about. In your example, it's hard to define what is necessary and what is not, but it is pretty clear that after the second or third hammer stroke that that person is no longer defending themselves.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Jesus. Are you guys still going at it? I have an honest question for both of you. Have any of you three actually been to Ireland or the UK? Nope.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Manic, this is all I see when you reply to me:

http://www.cotohousingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/100716_scarecrow.jpg

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

You know, the point about "rights" is worth discussing. You're right that the conception of most "rights" is largely bourgeois nonsense...but there are concrete rights that do exist...the right to self-defense, for instance. So long as such a right is grounded in material reality and not in the abstract, I think the issue is avoided.


Is speech or assembly such a concrete right?



The claim of nationalists to self-determination is oftentimes secondary. After all, it's really actions, not words, that define a movement. Lots of fascists can talk all day about "self-determination", but in reality their goal is the suppression of everyone else's self-determination, along with the suppression of the workers of the world. Therefore, we can't support any old organization just because they claim they stand for self-determination...the imperialist-backed Kurdish nationalists in Iraq have shown little remorse over the expulsion of Turcomans from areas of their control, for instance.

But like I said, this doesn't disqualify that nation from having a legitimate claim to exactly that. Just because I oppose the imperialist collaborators among Kurdish nationalists doesn't mean Kurds don't have a completely legitimate claim to self-determination.
I highly doubt there's any national liberation movement with hands that are altogether clean, with a few possible exceptions like quit india. I highly doubt that the Kurds were literally fighting for the Imperialist agenda. Perhaps they were being used as a proxy for that but their leaders wouldn't have been conscious of that and there was certainly never a meeting with minutes where they discussed how to best serve the Empire. In that case, it is in reality the people who are creating the demand for these nationalist movements who are to blame. The Kurds are victims of false consciousness if that is occurring, and that false consciousness stems primarily from the ideological claims made by local power institutions.



On your last point, it's definitely true what you say about the bourgeoisie. The Irish War of Independence led to the establishment of a bourgeois state, one that was far from progressive even by bourgeois standards. However, I think the Irish workers have been able to make progress since the defeat of British imperialism in the majority of Ireland...if we ask our Irish comrades on this forum, I'm quite confident many (if not most) of them would confirm that, and say that independence was a progressive step. That's really what we're talking about, the removal of imperialist power and a step forward for workers.
They might see independence as a progressive move, but it didn't do much to progress the rights of the Working Class in England. Who knows, perhaps had Ireland and the UK remained together, the 1920s would have heightened the social crisis and given the forces for change more power? Nah, maybe that's just a pipe dream on my part!



The "traditional" area of Tibet reminds me quite a bit of "Greater Hungary"...yeah, they used to have an empire that made some conquests, but those terms don't exactly apply anymore.

As far as other issues related to Tibet, there's a lot of misinformation out there. The "Free (Feudal) Tibet" crowd celebrates a monarchy and opposes the line of progressive Tibetans like that of Sitar, a former serf and important member of the CPC. I think it's reasonable to suggest that most Tibetans support what the PRC has put in place since the liberation of Tibet, most opposition to the PRC has been marginal at best...and we can't forget that it was a matter of liberation from the start, the PLA literally enforced manumission of serfs there.
I've never seen any evidence that Tibetan dissidents or the Dalai Lama (who was more of a pope or grand ayatollah than a monarch) actually wants the feudal economy restored. The free tibet crowd might have a naive view of what the place was like before China came but the tibetan dissidents themselves don't, and these days the Dalai Lama himself supports union with China and some sort of socialist economy. It seems kind of reductionist to think that Tibet was a feudal economy because of the evil monks and they just want to return it to that way as soon as they have the chance. They were an isolated country with little exposure to modern modes of production, so there's no reason to judge the Tibetan dissidents of today on the economic policies of 1940s Tibet. Even if you did, then we'd never get anywhere ... the Irish for instance were feudal themselves when conquered by the British.

It can be simultaneously true that the PRC has improved material conditions for the Tibetans and yet many still oppose PRC policy. It seems to be economic reductionism to think that because the PRC has improved their economic standing, that they must then support the government in Beijing. Not all Tibetans blame the Lamas for feudalism, and some Tibetans might have simmering resentment over Chinese mistreatment. I do agree that the Chinese raised living standards etc but they did often act with disproportionate brutality when they saw "stability" or "harmony" under threat. I've met Tibetan exiles before, they are hardly marginal radicals and actually remained often in close touch with their relatives at home. They certainly weren't a bunch of bourgeois and aristocrats looking to impose some retrogressive regime but merely people who felt like the State didn't respect their autonomy as a people enough. Nor were they irrational fanatics like Cuban Americans-on the contrary they didn't voice opposition to socialism or socialist reforms in their countries or even union with China, their main concern was on issues of national autonomy.

Traditional Tibet is the area which they occupied during the civil war era which was often largely Tibetan in population. I don't see how that's any less legitimate than the Irish claim over Northern Ireland. I agree that any "greater Tibet" is probably a pipe dream but if there are populations which want to be a part of Tibet because they are majority Tibetan then the borders can be redrawn.

Tibet also isn't the only minority area which feels that China has mismanaged their territory. Uighurs for instance, and Mongols in Inner Mongolia feel like the government exhibits Han chauvinism and has done less to actually empower their populations, even if there were short-term gains in removing old feudal barriers to production. The riots in Urumqi and Inner Mongolia (the ones in Urumqi which were handled horribly by the Chinese government but their response to the ones in Mongolia seemed a little more proactive by comparison), are good examples of how this conflict continues and extends outside of the Tibetan community, which gets more attention because of the attention that its status as a center of Tantric Buddhist culture garners (a culture which Mongolia shares but its not a major center).



That's exactly what I mean...the Ashkanazi and Russian and Mizrahi are not the same, so what's the only thing tying them together? Zionism and an imperialist-backed puppet state. Also, the US doesn't just protect the Zionist state, it's the only reason it exists. The 4-6 million Jews who are there now can certainly be a part of any post-Israeli setup, much like South Africa has done since the defeat of that apartheid.
No Ashenazi etc aren't the same but this doesn't mean that these communities cannot form a common identity when living together for a number of years. After all if an African immigrant to England has a baby, grows up in England and learns about English culture, then that baby is as English as any other. Likewise the Jewish population has been mingling for 50 years and even if the immigrants come from many different places there is certainly a common identity. You said yourself nationality isn't the same as ethnicity, ashkenazi, mizrahi etc represent different ethnic identities but in Israel they come together to form a notion of identity. That is certainly what I have experienced with Israelis I have met. National identity is a social construct, and like any social construct it doesn't always take a lot of time to build up.

As for US protection of the zionist state that's still not relevant, and the example of south africa is a good one to show why. The Boers were not a particularly nice nation in terms of how they treated the Africans, nor were they an ancient nation, however they were still a nation and it was that identity upon which apartheid south africa was built. The ANC won by creating a multinational vision for South Africa not by excluding the Afrikaaners as a legitimate people simply because they had been an extension of Imperial white rule and dependent on "Western" powers.



No, no. Palestinians have existed as a nation much longer than that, IMO. It's not like they woke up one morning in the 1940's and realized they had a common history. It goes back to at least the mid-1800's, if not earlier. You talk about the etymology of the word, but France comes from "Franks", who aren't around anymore...same goes for Alemania or even Belgium.

You do have a point that "Syrian" or "Iraqi" were quite arbitrarily created by British imperialist cartographers playing "let's redraw the middle east" one Sunday morning. You could say that Levantine Arabs have all the requirements to be considered a nation...but if I grant you that, what changes? Replace "Palestinian" with "Levantine Arabs made perpetual refugees by Zionist ethnic cleansing" and the demand for self-determination and a redress of land theft stands just as it did before.

Still, like I said, any and all Jews would definitely have a peaceful and dignified place in a post-Israel setup, and just about all Palestinians have said as much. In that I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I think all Arab states, except possibly Egypt and a few of the Emirates like Saudi Arabia or Oman, suffer from the same problem that they don't really represent a historical nationality but are merely lines drawn on a map based on geography, not demographic realities. The Palestinians themselves include many tribes and cultures such as bedouins, muslims, christians, druze and so on. So in that respect I really don't see Palestine as any different, but I do think the collective experience of the Nakba instilled a sense of common nationality



We can hardly blame socialist Yugoslavia for what occurred in its dying days...it was imperialist meddling (spearheaded by the World Bank and co) that funded right-wing monsters and spread the seeds of hatred. I had heard most people in Yugoslavia were quite positive about Tito and his policies, but even I was surprised at the respect with which Yugoslavs talked about Tito when I visited there. The tragedy that occurred there is a textbook example of imperialism doing what it does: giving the reigns of power to lunatics and denying the people any voice.
I think there's a difference between being a leader who institutes a few good ideas in office and the creation of a sustainable social project. I have heard similar things about Tito (some negative but more positive, especially relative to where Yugoslavia is today) but I think the national-federal structure as it existed was vulnerable to whatever caused the rise of nationalism (be it foreign meddling, local power disputes, or more likely, both). All of the nationalist leaders which split Yugoslavia came from within the power structure, they weren't foreign plants.



On Ireland and possible unity with the rest of the British Isles, that's something bear in mind...but remember that even if there wasn't a united state across the British Isles, relations between socialist states there would be better than good. It would simply be a matter of Irish workers deciding to retain their independence, understanding that the age of human society without states or borders is the ultimate goal. And anyway, a united European state wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility, so it might even be a moot point.Well, a united worldwide system would be best :P

[Prometeo liberado]

I think if you are looking for something to read I would start with A History of the IRA, by Tim Pat Coogan. It'll give you a history of the struggle along with each parties role in the fighting. The marxist started taking over in the mid 60's. The book goes over the Green Book and the moves made by INLA and others.

[Polyphonic Foxes]

I will never comprehend the left wing support for nationalism or, in this case, Irish Republicanism.

Nationalism is a disease, it's not something to be used to your advantage, it's not something to be pragmatic about or to consider a "step" to liberation, it's something to be crushed - I have zero tolerance for it, but what really gets to me is how daring to oppose nationalism in all forms makes you an imperialist - it's fucked up logic right?

Well that's basically the logic of Irish republican socialism - if you're not with us you're against us, how left wing of you.

edit: Another thing: Ireland doesn't belong to the British, and it doesn't belong to the irish people either, it doesn't "belong" to anyone, it is no ones right to own it, that's communism people.

[Firebrand]

Well i reckon that Ireland should get independence. That way we can stop arguing about it and get on with the really important discussions.

[Polyphonic Foxes]

Well i reckon that Ireland should get independence. That way we can stop arguing about it and get on with the really important discussions.

Why? What do you think is gonna change? All I see happening is a new flag ruled by a new swathe of capitalists and leaders. All the old problems would still be there, there would still be sectarianism regardless, and I don't see why the country would be any closer to socialism because the british government no longer controls it.

I dare say that the British government is actually more progressive then the Irish one, I don't see how it would benefit socialism if the people of Northern ireland suddenly found themselves part of a more conservative state than the UK.

[Firebrand]

Why? What do you think is gonna change? All I see happening is a new flag ruled by a new swathe of capitalists and leaders. All the old problems would still be there, there would still be sectarianism regardless, and I don't see why the country would be any closer to socialism because the british government no longer controls it.

I dare say that the British government is actually more progressive then the Irish one, I don't see how it would benefit socialism if the people of Northern ireland suddenly found themselves part of a more conservative state than the UK.

I'm not saying an independent irish state would be any better than an ireland ruled by england. I'm saying that until ireland does have an independent state people will be convinced that all their problems can be traced back to the nationality of their oppressors. If ireland gets full independence then the class divide will become more obvious because it won't be possible to divert sentiment for change into nationalism.
Sometimes the only way to prove to people that the grass isn't greener on the other side, is to let them go to the other side and find out for themselves. Once they've done that then they will be far more ready to listen when you tell them that the reason the grass isn't green on either side is because the water is being stolen by the bourgeoisie.

[MotherCossack]

shit. it all seems hopeless sometimes .i get depressed now and then... for some reason...
the history is so shite.. .
like bulls in a china shop.. like candles in the wind... like piling stones upon a bed of strawberry trifle . like skating on ice like paper. like doing something so very hard it is doomed to fail.
hark at me i blame those bullies in chit chat they hurt my feelings and i'm hiding in the shadows til they get bored of pouring scorn on my rubbish life!
sorry to be off topic , but maybe the whole world is a bit off topic where ireland is concerned.

i know i am off topic where my life is concerned.

[Tovarisch]

I really hope that Northern Ireland gets its independence from Britain and joins the old Eire. I've been to both countries, and I found Ireland to be a lot more progressive. Ireland gives much better benefits for the workers and the unemployed alike. Ireland also has many more schools and doctors. People are not obsessed with celebrities in Ireland, so that's another good thing. I've lived in Ireland for a month, and it was the best place I've ever been in

I'd love to see where Ireland would be today if it wasn't oppressed by England for almost a millenium

Also, nothing against the British, I've known a lot of British and a lot of them are great people, and get a lot of undeserved hate from Ireland. It's just that the British government pisses me off with its attachment to monarchy and the obsession with Thatcher. I love the people, but I hate the government

[Ballyfornia]

and I found Ireland to be a lot more progressive. Ireland gives much better benefits for the workers and the unemployed alike. More dole money is about it.


People are not obsessed with celebrities in Ireland, so that's another good thing. They are, maybe not to severity that other Western Countries appear to be.


I'd love to see where Ireland would be today if it wasn't oppressed by England for almost a millenium It would have a bigger population.