I thought the Stalinists were bad

[bolshevik1917]

It was bad enough socialism being asscosiated with Stalinism on this board, now we have CIRA - a supporter of terrorist organisations like the IRA and ETO!

Its disgusting and embarrasing to think that genuine socialists may be tarred with the same brush as this pondlife.

[Just Joe]

the IRA and ETA are both Socialist organisations.

if you want terrorism, you don't have to look further than your namesake the Bolsheviks. hypocrite.

[bolshevik1917]

The IRA and ETO are nationalist terrorist organisations with no interests in the working class, even in 'their country'.

As for your accusations that the Bolsheviks were terrorists please elaborate. Lenin's brother was a terrorist, Lenin condoned this however, and rejected terrorism as a means to establish socialism.

[Just Joe]

both are national liberation armies who have socialist ideals. very much in the same way Castro and Che's army was.

the Bolsheviks were terrorists if you want to use that phrase. remember the 'red terror'? collectivisation? the Ukrainian famine? the purges? the gulags?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

First of all what does terrorist mean?

A soldier rapes, kills, slaughters but isn't called a terrorist, while a rebel who ambushes troops of "friend of America" nations is considerd terrorist.

"Terrorist" is nothing more than a way for the strongest nation to pinpoint their enemy's.

I know to little of the IRA to judge, but they fight just like other troops behind enemy lines do.

Agents of the secret services operate pretty much the same as the so called "terrorists".

[Just Joe]

yeah, i don't really agree with the term terrorist in most cases. but if Bolshevik1917 is using the word to describe the provos, the Bolsheviks were surely terrorists and to a much larger and more bloody extent.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Terrorist: someone who spreads terror.

That means that China people's Army is the biggest terrorist organisation.

That means that the US Army is the most active terrorist organisation, (wich I don't doubt).

[deimos]

The ETA has socialist aims-but they fight for nothing!The idea of an own basque nation is weird...
I supported the IRA if the Irish still would be oppresse by the English, but from what I have seen, the Irish are free, and in Northern Ireland the english are the majority.

[Just Joe]

so the idea of your people living in there own nation and governing themselves is...weird?

for the las time, read your history and stop talking shit. the 'English' do not live in Ireland. the Protestant (narrow) majority in the 6 counties mainly consider themselves British but it is the opinion of the whole Island of Ireland that counts. the majority of people on the Island want a unified Ireland.

and yes Catholics are still oppressed in the North. higher unemployment and still underrepresentation in major institutions. the Protestant working class is also opressed still.

please, everyone, get you facts right before you make judgements. i wouldn't make judgements on the political situation in Indonesia because i don't know it. so if you know nothing, learn, then comment.

(Edited by Just Joe at 4:22 pm on Feb. 5, 2003)

[Iepilei]

the militias of the American Revolution were all terrorists to Britian.

[Revolution Hero]

Bolshevik1917 showed his ignorance one more time.

Indeed Just Joe was right. Bolsheviks organized Red Terror as the answer on White terror during the civil war. But Bolsheviks never considered terrorism as the mean of achieving socialism. Red terror was forced measure, as civil war dictated its own rules.

Quote from bolshevik1917:” It was bad enough socialism being asscosiated with Stalinism on this board”

If you don’t like the board then get the fuck out of here.

[redstar2000]

While I consider myself (at least!) as much of a Marxist as bolshevik1917, I think he is mistaken in reproaching "Movements of National Liberation" for not being communist.

They're not supposed to be.

They are national...that means ALL classes unite to drive out the imperial oppressor.

To try and "argue" people out of those convictions by dismissing their national aspirations as "weird" is a waste of time...and probably a little insulting as well.

The task of communists is to advocate communism. The task of movements of national liberation is to advocate national liberation. One shouldn't confuse the two.

I don't recall the exact words, but it seems to me that Marx himself had a constructive comment to make along these lines: The English working class cannot emancipate itself until Ireland is free. I think that could apply as well to the French and Spanish working classes with regard to the Basque people.

As far as "terrorism" is concerned, the word was coined, I believe, by the English politician Edmund Burke...to describe the actions of the Revolutionary French Government taken to suppress the old aristocracy.

To the oppressor, all resistance is either "terrorism" or "potential terrorism". We should simply forget the word and do whatever we think is appropriate.

:cool:

[canikickit]

Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians. That is the generally accepted definition.

I agree with what Redstar said on the topic of national liberation. Self determinating capitalism is better than some other assholes doing the determinating for you. It's quite simple.

[hawarameen]

if ireland can agree that they want to be unified by way of referendum then they must be allowed to do so. northern ireland should be allowed to decide its future i think the only problem that current and previous governments have had is they do not want to be seen as giving in to the IRA/RIRA etc.

[bolshevik1917]

"We should simply forget the word and do whatever we think is appropriate."

That all very well, but what some people (the IRA) think to be appropriate is blowing up workers, putting bombs in peoples cars, setting off street bombs, shootings - not progressive, just the blatant murder of workers!

The aim of Marxism is to get people thinking about classes and not countries. I have not spoken to CIRA the way I would speak to a man on the street because CIRA is a defender of patriotic terrorism - I have no intentions of trying to be nice to him.

And of course where would any debate be without the angry little 12 year old Revolution Hero..

"Bolsheviks organized Red Terror as the answer on White terror during the civil war."

Was this 'red terror' directed against workers at all?

No, there is no similarity.

“Bourgeois nationalism and proletarian internationalism are two implacably opposed slogans, corresponding to two great class camps throughout the entire capitalist world and expressing two policies (rather, two world outlooks) on the national question.”
- V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, in Russian, vol. 48

"Since the situation of the workers of all countries is the same, their interests the same, and their enemies the same, they must also fight together and confront the fraternity of the bourgeoisie of all nations with a fraternity of the workers of all nations."
- Marx/Engels, Reden uber Polen


These three articles sum my views up on petty bourgeois nationalist terrorists groups

http://www.marxist.com/Europe/northern_ire...kers_unity.html (http://www.marxist.com/Europe/northern_ireland_workers_unity.html)

http://www.marxist.com/Theory/national_question3.html

http://www.marxist.com/Theory/nationalquestion.html

[mentalbunny]

Please note, this post contains only my opinion, based on what I have seen and what I have experienced.

I don't like nationalism, you cannot put nationalism next to socialism, the two are, in my eyes, incompatible. We cannot fight from country to country, as technology is making the world smaller we have to learn that our ideas of "nations" is going to get us nowhere, discrimination between countries is foolish and unproductive.

Why can't we co-operate? I'm not saying all countries are the same, they aren't. They all have different cultures and resources, but instead about squabbling over a bit of land we should be thinking about how we can make it better for everyone, share land out as equally as we can.

You're talking about Northern Ireland, a place that will be in a mess as long as we have boundaries. We need to dissolve the boundaries, teach people that a Protestant and a Catholic do not have to kill each other, that while we may get emotionally attached to where we are brought up, it is not impossible to move and start again, or to live next to someone who believes differently to you.

Any organisation that uses violence and terror to get it's point across is a terrorist organisation, that means both the IRA abd US army.

Reember Hitler called himself a "nationalist socialist", as does Saddam at the moment, and that actually means facist, so you cannot call yourself a nationalist socialists, it's complete bollocks basically.

Quit with the squabbling and get back to helping the proletariat gain their rightful power non-violently.

[redstar2000]

Mentalbunny, I don't like nationalism either and I've said so in many threads on this board.

Nationalists (Irish or otherwise) "neglected" to ask my opinion (or yours) prior to formulating their views...sad but true. Under the circumstances, what is to be gained by reproaching them for "not being communists"?

It's funny: all of the threads on this board that bring up nationalism seem concerned with countries that simply want part or all of their country back; e.g., the IRA is not trying to conquer England, they just want the rest of Ireland back. The Cubans are not trying to seize Miami, they want Guantanemo Bay returned to Cuba. The Palestinians are not seeking empire...they want Palestine back. The Basques don't want to rule in Paris or Madrid, the Kurds seek no power in Ankara or Baghdad, etc., etc., etc.

You don't like their "methods"...fair enough. But why should they care about your opinion...or mine? It's their struggle. That means they define its aims, its methods, etc.

I think it especially absurd when English people criticize the IRA as "terrorists"...considering the English have been responsible for some 800 plus years of terror in parts or all of Ireland. It's like Americans complaining about Cuban assistance to Latin American revolutionary movements as "terrorism"...when the United States has been guilty of political, economic and military terrorism against the people of Central and South America for the last two centuries. The reign of terror that various Israeli governments have imposed on the Palestinians make Israeli complaints of "Palestinian terrorism" an insult to one's intelligence.

The fact that "you or I" would do things differently is irrelevant. They are the victims...they decide on their methods. Not us!

Being neither Irish nor English, my opinion on "the national question" is very simple: U.S. GET OUT NOW! of everywhere. That's the imperialism I have a revolutionary duty to struggle against..."my own".

Communists in England have the same kind of revolutionary duty: not "support the IRA" (any faction), but "BRITS OUT NOW!" of everywhere. The same analogy holds in every imperial country: it is not up to us to shape the societies of the countries that our country oppresses and exploits...it is up to us to oppose, with whatever strength we can muster, the imperial ambitions and claims of "our own" imperial power.

B1917, that quote from Marx in your post was more revealing that perhaps you intended it to be. When Marx wrote that, he was talking about Europeans.
When the situation of all workers in all countries really is the same, then and only then will proletarian internationalism really make sense to workers in every country.

To tell, in condescending tones, an Irish worker in the British-occupied zone that he should make common cause with English workers is to simply provoke a scornful and bitter laugh...or a punch in the snoot, if s/he's had a bad day.

That reaction might be regrettable...but, as Marxists, we ought to be capable of understanding it.

:cool:

[Conghaileach]

The Cuban revolution began as a national liberation struggle, as did Vietnam, Korea and countless others.

[mentalbunny]

I consider national liberation to be somewhat different to wanting another country to get out of your land, it's again your own leader more than anything, correct me if I'm wrong.

Redstar, I hear what you are saying, and I don't disagree with it, but I will never condone the IRA or any similar groups. Maybe I'd feel the same way as them in the same situation, I don't know because that is a hypothetical situation, but I understnad. Obviously they aren't asking any one else's opinion, but a cause is usually better supported if those involved use non-violent methods, especially after the examples of Ghandi and Martin Luther King. Let the oppressers look like the big bad bully and you look like the good, kind suffering vitcim. People will die either way, it's just how they die that makes the difference.

[Conghaileach]

from mentalbunny:
I consider national liberation to be somewhat different to wanting another country to get out of your land, it's again your own leader more than anything, correct me if I'm wrong.

I think that I presented a clearer example in the 'Republican Socialist' thread.


but a cause is usually better supported if those involved use non-violent methods, especially after the examples of Ghandi and Martin Luther King. Let the oppressers look like the big bad bully and you look like the good, kind suffering vitcim.

You mean like Bloody Sunday?

[Revolution Hero]

Quote from boslhevik1917:” And of course where would any debate be without the angry little 12 year old Revolution Hero.”

You are just too far from guessing the reality.

Quote from bolshevik1917:” Was this 'red terror' directed against workers at all?”

NO. But Bolsheviks called it TERROR.

And for those who didn’t understand me. I didn’t defend any terrorist organization, but just point out the historical fact.

[redbhoy59]

Try telling a young boy/girl in Palestine or Ireland that has never read Marx, never heard of Engels, that they shouldn't pick up a gun and fight their oppressor who has been fighting them for so long, because nationalism is wrong. That's like telling a cornered wolf not to defend itself from a hunter, because human life is more precious than his own.

With all respect for your views B1917, I feel as though you should research the IRA further before attacking them so venomously. It seems your discription is taken right out of the National Review.

[mentalbunny]

Are we debating what is right or what happens?

I'm debating what is good/right, not what actually happens in these circumstances, what you can expect someone to do. I suppose you could call it acceptable for someone to pick up firearms in order to fight the oppressor, but i wouldn't call it right or good. Thing is people don't know enough about ethics, if they did then countless problems could be avoided. It's not as though we are fighting for the food we eat, is it? We have enough resources, we just don't use them properly.

[redstar2000]

Mentalbunny, think of it this way.

If I say U.S. OUT OF AFGHANISTAN, those who support U.S. imperialism will immediately accuse me of being a Taliban supporter, an oppressor of women, and a "terrorist sympathizer", inspite of the fact that I've never been any of those things.

It's what our enemies do...almost as a matter of reflex. When Mussolini's Italy invaded Ethiopia, he had the nerve to say that he was going in "to free the slaves"...so, if you opposed Italian imperialism, you were "obviously" in sympathy with slaveowners.

When people in England oppose English imperialism in Ireland, naturally the supporters of English imperialism are going to accuse you of being a "supporter of the IRA" and a "terrorist sympathizer"...absolutely without regard to what your views really are.

Why do our enemies behave in this fashion? Because they don't want the subject of their imperialism on the table...they would much rather have a "debate" about the unseemly methods of those who resist their domination. They want to see us busy falling all over ourselves to say that we don't "support" the Taliban or the IRA or whoever, that we don't "support" terrorism (honest! truly! terrorism--no way!)...thus removing themselves and their crimes from the center of attention.

But it is their crimes that deserve the central focus.

So why should we allow ourselves to be distracted by their bullshit evasion? You know that you have never given any kind of direct aid to the IRA, that you do not endorse their tactics, etc. In fact, as an open pacifist, it would be impossible for you to have done so. If you are accused of being an IRA "supporter" or a "terrorist sympathizer" because you want England OUT of Ireland, tell your accusers to FUCK OFF! That's the only response that we "owe" our enemies.

Not being a pacifist myself, my position is somewhat different than yours. It's possible, at least in theory, that I could be a direct supporter of a revolutionary movement in another country that was fighting for liberation from U.S. imperialism. Should that happen, I would certainly reply to the accusations of my enemies (supporters of U.S. imperialism): Damn right I support the XXX movement. Now, FUCK OFF!

My point is that in opposing the imperialism of our own countries, we do not "have" to be cheerleaders for the movements in oppressed countries...we can, in fact, freely admit any possible shortcomings in those movements. But that is not our focus and we should NEVER allow ourselves to be intimidated by our class enemies into making that our focus.

Our focus is, with whatever strength we can muster, to SMASH IMPERIALISM WHEREVER WE FIND IT!

:cool:

[redbhoy59]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 8:43 pm on Feb. 7, 2003
Are we debating what is right or what happens?

I'm debating what is good/right, not what actually happens in these circumstances, what you can expect someone to do. I suppose you could call it acceptable for someone to pick up firearms in order to fight the oppressor, but i wouldn't call it right or good. Thing is people don't know enough about ethics, if they did then countless problems could be avoided. It's not as though we are fighting for the food we eat, is it? We have enough resources, we just don't use them properly.


Metalbunny,

I respect your pacifism, but I don't understand how you can say that fighting back is wrong? I feel that if you were in a similar situation you may feel that armed struggle IS right. Even in an ethical sense. Opinions on the ethics vary. Even some Judeo-Christians believe in the old testament teaching of an eye for an eye.

Sorry for the ethical turn in the thread.

[mentalbunny]

redbhoy, I see no reason to apologise for an ethical turn.

redstar, I appreciate what you are saying (gosh, this is becoming more and more often the case, it's scary!). But how do we deal with the problem? What about the people who want NI to stay in Britain? When people get violent, sense and reason go out the window and everything is done to a certain extent on impulse and the stakes are much, much higher.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote from redstar2000:” When people in England oppose English imperialism in Ireland”

Is Ireland oppressed by England? Does England exploit Irish resources, just like it exploited its Indian colonies?
Obviously, any remembrance of imperialism is not applicable to Irish case. I have to agree that IRA is basically nationalist organization.

[redstar2000]

RH, the details of British exploitation of occupied Ireland I will leave to the Irish comrades to recount. I cannot believe that the British are in "the six counties" because they like the climate...so I assume some form of exploitation takes place.

But there may also be an element of "imperial prestige" involved; some upper-class English elements may regard it as "humiliating" to haul down the "Union Jack" for the last time in Belfast.

Which brings me to mentalbunny's question: what about the "people who want 'Northern Ireland" to stay in Britain"?

Depends on the reasons, I suppose. Those who are terrified that the "evil Catholics" will persecute them have to get over it. Those who know they've committed war crimes or human rights violations will flee to the English mainland on their own.

(The Catholic Church, by the way, may be no longer the "all-powerful monster" in Ireland that it used to be; I was just reading that the Church took out "child-abuse" insurance back in 1987...and many Irish Catholics are royally pissed off at this brazen financial cynicism...especially since the Church covered up its known child-abusing priests all through the decade of the 1990s.)

I agree, mentalbunny, that when "stakes are high", sense and reason often go out the window. All the more reason for us to keep a clear head and remember who the real enemy is.

To be specific, if the IRA kills some innocent civilians--if they truly are "innocent", we are always free to say: "That act was stupid, counter-productive and just plain wrong." But then we must quickly add: Nevertheless, Britain must GET OUT OF IRELAND NOW!

In your case, as a pacifist, you would want to say something like: "All violence is stupid and evil, nevertheless BRITAIN MUST GET OUT OF IRELAND NOW!"

And don't be intimidated by that stupid boogie-man that your enemies will wave in your face: "Oh, if Britain leaves, there will be a blood-bath." First of all, there won't and secondly, even if there were one, that is no business of England's. No one "appointed" England as keeper of the peace in Ireland...except England.
And, in fact, they've done a rather poor job of it, to put it mildly.

(I would favor UN Peacekeepers from small countries to replace ALL British forces & police until the reunification referendum can take place...throughout all of Ireland, of course.)

Then there will be no more murders or bombings in London or Belfast...just another small capitalist country with a tiny but hopefully growing communist movement. And, perhaps, not so tiny...

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 8:50 am on Feb. 8, 2003)

[bolshevik1917]

Where is the proof the IRA want to build socialism? Granted this has not always been the case, but I see nothing but nationalist terrorism (often directed against members of the working class).

In my opinion socialism will NEVER be acheived with bombs. Socialism will come from a workers revolution, via the trade unions.

If the IRA were still interested/serious about building socialism they would call for unity with the Northern Ireland workers and British workers, whilst rejecting the patriotic imperialist bile spouted by the unionists.

Apart from the fact that terrorism does not work, I must wonder why a 'socialist' organisation would need to use it in a country like Ireland anyway!

We have so many routes of communication, so many ways to spread ideas - were doing it now on the internet! Workers can be won over to socialism by hearing socialist theory. They can also be driven away from it if they think it involves bigotry, bombs and death.

For a united socialist state of Ireland with a united socialist Britain!

(Edited by bolshevik1917 at 5:15 am on Feb. 8, 2003)

[redstar2000]

"For a united socialist state of Ireland with a united socialist Britain." (emphasis added)

b1917, replace the name of Ireland in your slogan with Cuba and replace the name of Britain with United States.

Can you imagine how Cubans would react to such a slogan?

There are many people even in Scotland and Wales who are less than happy with rule from London...how much more so in Ireland?

Your slogan belongs in one of those "alternative time streams" that are so popular in science-fiction these days. It is a "what if" slogan...and, frankly, I can't even imagine what would have had to have taken place in the past to make that slogan realistic.

If the European Union becomes a socialist federation sometime towards the end of this century, I could certainly see a united socialist Ireland and a socialist England and a socialist Scotland and a socialist Wales all being members of it.

But to even hint that there are future prospects of unity between Britain and Ireland is to simply indulge in fantasy.

As to the IRA, I repeat, the politics of the IRA are not the legitimate concern of citizens/residents of the imperial country. It is not necessary that you "support the IRA" in order to make the simple and legitimate demand: BRITS OUT NOW!

:cool:

[bolshevik1917]

This is an extremely un-marxist view redstar, I am dissapointed in you.

Class analysis and class positions should be taken, NOT national ones.

In Scotland we have a party called the SNP (Scottish national party) who claim that Scotland 'needs to break free from English oppression'

In Wales a nationalist party also exists, always ranting about 'English oppression'

But it is not 'the Scots' or 'the Welsh' who are oppressed - its the working class. And we are not oppressed by 'England' but by our employers - the ruling class.

In England the working class is oppressed in the same way. There is not an ounce of diference between the Scots worker, the Welsh worker, the English worker or the Irish worker.

Slogans like 'BRITS OUT NOW' are just ignorant petty bourgeoise rantings.

Workers of the world unite - not divide

[mentalbunny]

b1917, it's not the english workers that are in NI, it's the english ruling classes that are oppressing the people there, you understand? It's not the workers who said "let's go take control of Northern Ireland" it was the rulers, therefore it is still a class struggle.

redstar, thanks for the great posts, next time the subject comes up, I'll know what to say.

[bolshevik1917]

Whether a ruling class is English, American, German or Martian its still a ruling class. The same applies to the working class.

What defines a 'Brit' anyway, I am a 'Brit' but then so is Tony Blair, Margret Thatcher, The Queen, Richard Branson etc

On the NI situation, the Ulster Loyalists contain members of the working class and want to stay (imperialist) Brittish. All working class people in NI dont want to break with Britain - but then all working class people are not (yet) socialists.

The only way forward for the working class is class unity. The sooner sectarian groups like the IRA and the UVF are rejected by workers the better.

And on Scotland and Wales, there is a 1% chance that they could revolt without England (I dont like saying things are impossible). Parties like the reformist SSP shout for an 'independant socialist scotland' - but then they never have been a marxist party.

[Conghaileach]

b1917, you need to understand that the IRA is not the "be all, end all" of Irish Republicanism.

How is it that you expect the Irish working-class to be united with the British working-class if Ireland is still subjugated by British imperialism?


"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor;
it must be demanded by the oppressed." - Martin Luther King Jr.

"Peaceful coexistance between nations does not exist
between the expoloiters and the exploited,
between the opressors and the oppressed." - Che Guevara


James Connolly argued that the greatest enemy of the Irish people was British imperialism, and that their greatest ally was the British working class.

Only a free Irish working class can be united with the British working class.

[bolshevik1917]

People will eventually realise who their enemies are. British imperialism is an enemy of the Scottish, English, Welsh and Irish working classes as a whole.

Individualy we would not have the strength to carry through a revolution in Britain - thats why people MUST unite. There is no alternative - and as Marxists this must be explained to people at all times.

My comrade Alan Woods was once asked to speak at an ETA meeting where he put forward a marxist perspective - hammering home the point that terrorism does not, has not, and will not work. People listened to him, many of them later went on to join the Spanish Marxist group Militante.

So the next time a worker in Ireland is told his wages are being cut, or that he is losing his job - explain to him why this is happening. The system of capitalism. After some discussions and explinations ask him what he would like to fight for - a 'free' capitalist ireland, or a socialist Ireland.