"the working man has no country"

[Okocim]

ok, I read this today and it made me think. I don't know how many of you support the muslims in their blowing up of normal people,but I reckon I'll put this to you anyway.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,24...2310288,00.html (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,24392-2310288,00.html)

(yeh, the article's written by a tory, but ignore that)

here nationalism is clearly serving some decent purpose so I don't see why people on the left are so against it in all circumstances. Normally I am against it because it draws up borders between us, it leads to discrimination, racism and exclusion. It gives people like the BNP an excuse to act as they do.

However, Portillo is arguing its good points for usage in extraordinary situations like what we currently face. America hasn't had another attack on its soil possibly because of how the nation groups together, but Britain, we separate out looking for someone to blame. British people are blaming themselves, or the PM (though tbh it really is partly his fault), or the press, or America, rather than ignoring all this and simply grouping together to get through it. United we stand, divided we fall.

I oppose the muslim extremists for two reasons 1) it's religious 2) killing innocent civilians, who quite often disagree with the government to the same extent as those muslims, is totally wrong. I oppose nationalism for many reasons, but I think, like Lenin's money and other help from the German government, even our enemies can have their uses at times.


So...thoughts? Please don't simply resort to calling me reactionist trash. I oppose the current UK government and certainly don't want to be supporting Blair, however I oppose the muslim extremists - surely utilising nationalism for our own purposes temporarily can be excused so long as something justifies the end result? The bnp is using this form of control (because that's what nationalism essentially is) in order to recruit the working classes to their cause. The left is loosing out on this support. Rather than being able to tell the people the real cause of their suffering, the bnp are using nationalism to get to them first and to convince them that the cause in immigrants rather than capitalism. If the left was to seize onto this we could attract people and tell them the truth rather than leaving it to the bnp to lie through their teeth for every ounce of support they can get.

[Whitten]

There are those who use a certain degree of nationalism on the left. But what exactly is it your suggesting? That the left adopts policies of white nationalism like the BNP in order to gain support? It sounds like your suggesting we should just blame Islam fro everything

[Okocim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 06:35 PM
There are those who use a certain degree of nationalism on the left. But what exactly is it your suggesting? That the left adopts policies of white nationalism like the BNP in order to gain support?
like the bnp? definitely not

you don't need to be white to be British, I'm not suggesting white supremacism at all, but nationalism could, potentially, I think be employed temporarily for our own goals. Like rallying behind the national football team kind of thing; during the world cup plenty of coloured Brits wore the shirt and I think it shows a real ability to unify us, but without racism.

Don't blame Islam either - I'm suggesting we incorporate muslims into the country rather than the "us and them" which fosters terrorists and extremism.

[Whitten]

I dont think furthering the british nationalist agenda will make the race hate thing any better. I think it would only serve to divide us further, from those who dont subscribe to the same idea of "britishness".

[RedCommieBear]

Like rallying behind the national football team kind of thing; during the world cup plenty of coloured Brits wore the shirt and I think it shows a real ability to unify us, but without racism.


I've come to the conclusion that there are two types of nationalists. There's the "my-race-and-country-are-superior-to-you" nationalists. Then there's the "I-like-my-soccer-team-and-like-to-eat-regional-foods" type nationalists. Obviously, the first type should and will be destroyed. But the second type is not only harmless, but is good.

"Patriotism is loving your country always and your government when it deserves it" -Mark Twain

[beltov]

Hi,

It doesn't suprise me that a member of the ruling class encourages popular support amongst the working class for nationalism, which can only lead to division and lack of solidarity - this is precisely what they want! The greater attachment of proletarians to 'their' national capital - or proto-state for that matter - has NEVER made the world a safer place. It has only ever prepared the ground for imperialist slaughter. You can see this happening in the war in the Middle East today where supposedly 'we are all Hizbollah'. Far from being an antidote to war and terrorism such phrases are a lethal poison for the working class, serving to take it of its class terrain and dragoon it behind competing imperialist interests.

The internationalist watchwords of the workers' movement you quote are as important today as they ever have been. Workers of the world, indeed, UNITE!

Beltov.

[YSR]

I oppose the muslim extremists for two reasons 1) it's religious 2) killing innocent civilians, who quite often disagree with the government to the same extent as those muslims, is totally wrong.

These "Muslim Extremists" are an unreal threat compared to what already exists in Western countries. How many people have they killed in the United Kingdom? In the U.S., where I'm from, they've killed around three thousand people.

How many people has the British government killed? The United States government? Many more.

Workers have no national boundaries because these boundaries were created to seperate us and serve to prop up the forces that keep us divided and oppressed. The government, the capitalists, these are the forces that benefit from boundaries.

Whatever "good" things nationalism may do, it is far outweighed by the overwhelming problems it creates: every international war ever fought has been working people fighting each other to benefit the ruling classes of countries. Nations must be eliminated for us workers to be free.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 10:51 PM
Hi,

It doesn't suprise me that a member of the ruling class encourages popular support amongst the working class for nationalism, which can only lead to division and lack of solidarity - this is precisely what they want! The greater attachment of proletarians to 'their' national capital - or proto-state for that matter - has NEVER made the world a safer place. It has only ever prepared the ground for imperialist slaughter. You can see this happening in the war in the Middle East today where supposedly 'we are all Hizbollah'. Far from being an antidote to war and terrorism such phrases are a lethal poison for the working class, serving to take it of its class terrain and dragoon it behind competing imperialist interests.

The internationalist watchwords of the workers' movement you quote are as important today as they ever have been. Workers of the world, indeed, UNITE!

Beltov.
Memeber of the ruling class?

Are you talking about me or Portillo? <_<


I hear you loud and clear with the imperialistic aspect of nationalism, however I do not think that all nationalism necessarily leads to imperialistic ambitions if handled right. The current middle east conflict is not really a nationalist conflict - it&#39;s the result of disproportionate response by a nation which appears to have been waiting for revenge on Lebanon since it was expelled in 2000.


You say it divides the working classes? well surely the lack of nationalism in Britain is doing this? Rather than the British working classes feeling solidarity for the workers coming here from other countries, they are being enticed by the newspapers and by racist organizations to adopt xenophobia rather than national pride. That&#39;s what I&#39;m talking about - not nationalism but some form of pide in the country united. It&#39;s practically a crime here to fly an England flag (not that I do, nor want to) from your house because of the racist connotations given to the gesture by parties such as the bnp. I&#39;m not suggesting at all that some kind of "Britain is better than any other nation" attitude is adopted (I&#39;m an "immigrant" here myself), but I think taking in muslim, and other, immigrants and allowing them to fit into the community is the best way to avoid alienating people, who, the vast majority of which, will be working class.

I don&#39;t know if anyone is still reading - I&#39;m only really thinking this out as I type it. But look at America - ignore all the capitalist, racist, homophobic bullshit and what do you have? You have a nation of immigrants who, during times of crisis, all pull together under one flag. Sure, that isn&#39;t the red flag, just yet, but it&#39;s a uniting factor which I think the left could exploit.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by Young Stupid Radical+Aug 13 2006, 11:01 PM--> (Young Stupid Radical &#064; Aug 13 2006, 11:01 PM)
I oppose the muslim extremists for two reasons 1) it&#39;s religious 2) killing innocent civilians, who quite often disagree with the government to the same extent as those muslims, is totally wrong.

These "Muslim Extremists" are an unreal threat compared to what already exists in Western countries. How many people have they killed in the United Kingdom? In the U.S., where I&#39;m from, they&#39;ve killed around three thousand people.

How many people has the British government killed? The United States government? Many more.

Workers have no national boundaries because these boundaries were created to seperate us and serve to prop up the forces that keep us divided and oppressed. The government, the capitalists, these are the forces that benefit from boundaries.[/b]

I don&#39;t think they are an "unreal threat". I know the papers, politicians and security services lie to us, but 7/7 and 11/9 were both very real events.

I think there&#39;s a difference between supporting the government and having any feeling of national pride. Of course they&#39;ve killed many more - and I deplore their actions - but then again, they do have more power and so have more ability to kill people.



Young Stupid [email protected] 13 2006, 11:01 PM
Whatever "good" things nationalism may do, it is far outweighed by the overwhelming problems it creates: every international war ever fought has been working people fighting each other to benefit the ruling classes of countries. Nations must be eliminated for us workers to be free.

yes absolutely, they must - there can be no communism whilst states exist. However, I know that; what I was suggesting is, like Lenin, using "bad" things now for our own ends and the eventual outcome of having the people united will make up for it?

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 12:10 AM
yes absolutely, they must - there can be no communism whilst states exist. However, I know that; what I was suggesting is, like Lenin, using "bad" things now for our own ends and the eventual outcome of having the people united will make up for it?
Depends on whether or not you believed that the ends justifies the means. Personally, I&#39;ve come to the conclusion that it doesn&#39;t.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 14 2006, 12:45 AM
Depends on whether or not you believed that the ends justifies the means. Personally, I&#39;ve come to the conclusion that it doesn&#39;t.
"the end justifies the means so long as something justifies the end".

:D

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Okocim+--> (Okocim)(yeh, the article&#39;s written by a tory, but ignore that)[/b]

Why on earth would we ignore that? Knowing/understanding the perspective of the author - and knowing that, it&#39;s clear that this article is an attempt to slip nationalism in via the backdoor, a false, &#39;nice nationalism&#39; - NO&#33;


Originally posted by Okocim+--> (Okocim)
there nationalism is clearly serving some decent purpose so I don&#39;t see why people on the left are so against it in all circumstances. Normally I am against it because it draws up borders between us, it leads to discrimination, racism and exclusion. It gives people like the BNP an excuse to act as they do.[/b]

Then you dont understand &#39;the left&#39; - or at least the revolutionaries. We oppose nationalism precisely for the reasons the author claims they are &#39;normally against&#39; it - but more importantly, because nationalism of any form - fosters a false identification with the nation-state, legitimises a false conception of history, and &#39;national culture&#39; - it is in reality, fostering an identification with the ruling class, with our rulers - because &#39;our nation&#39;, is headed by a state, a PM etc. - identifying with the nation-state is the anti-thesis of class consciousness, exploited peoples are united in their exploitation, not by the flag of a coloniser (as in the UK), or by a bourgeois government.


Originally posted by Okocim

However, Portillo is arguing its good points for usage in extraordinary situations like what we currently face.

Why should &#39;we&#39; unite? It is the state that has caused the problems that &#39;we face&#39; - it&#39;s the governments&#39; fault that there is a real and imagined &#39;threat&#39; of &#39;terrorism&#39; - british imperialism, US imperialism and so forth, has created the conditions, and the resentment which has fueled this international blowback, it is not the fault of working class people, and we must unite to overthrow the state, to oppose more wars of imperialism in the &#39;middle east&#39;, to withdraw their colonial garrisons etc.


Originally posted by Okocim

America hasn&#39;t had another attack on its soil possibly because of how the nation groups together,

Hello fallacy&#33;

You&#39;re (the author?) trying to make the point that nationalism is good, and that we should all &#39;unite&#39;, okay, but there is zero proof that firstly - the US is &#39;united&#39; (that is a straight up lie to begin with, the US is one of the most bitterly stratified societies on the planet), and secondly that there has not been any attacks on the US recently has ANYTHING at all to do with this idea of &#39;unity&#39; -

How exactly does national unity prevent terrorist attacks from happening?

That makes no fucking sense at all.

Perhaps there hasnt been any recent attacks, because the &#39;terrorist threat&#39; is over-hyped by &#39;our&#39; nation-states in order to justfiy wars of imperialism and a crack-down civil liberties, workers rights, unions etc. at &#39;home&#39;?

The &#39;war on terror&#39; has empowered states everywhere to increase their control over the population, in this context nationalism serves only to legitimise this repression, &#39;we must unite behind our government&#39; etc.


Originally posted by Okocim

but Britain, we separate out looking for someone to blame. British people are blaming themselves, or the PM (though tbh it really is partly his fault), or the press, or America, rather than ignoring all this and simply grouping together to get through it. United we stand, divided we fall.

No.

Why should the people unite when the state/ruling class has caused these problems?

British people should be looking for someone to blame, they should get angry, and they should start looking at the fucking top, with the PM, with the government, with the ruling class who profit from the &#39;war on terror&#39;.

Ignoring WHY people in the &#39;middle east&#39; are &#39;angry&#39; is giving the ruling class and the state a free-pass to continue putting US in danger. After all, it&#39;s not the politicians or the rich fucks who die in &#39;terrorist attacks&#39; in the &#39;west&#39; is it?

The people should be united, but not around some bullshit nationalist rhetoric, but united to overthrow the state and ruling class that oppresses them and people around the world via imperialism, every fucking day.

Once we have divided ourselves, oppressed versus oppressor, the state, and capitalism will fall.


Originally posted by Okocim

I oppose the muslim extremists for two reasons 1) it&#39;s religious 2) killing innocent civilians,

Do you oppose the goverment for the same reasons?

They sure as hell enjoy killing innocent civilians, and the influence of &#39;christian morality&#39; and other bullshit superstitious nonsense has permeated most if not all &#39;western&#39; states.


Originally posted by Okocim

So...thoughts? Please don&#39;t simply resort to calling me reactionist trash.

I&#39;m sorry, but that&#39;s what this is - a call to nationalism of any form, is a call to reaction.


Originally posted by Okocim

I oppose the current UK government and certainly don&#39;t want to be supporting Blair, however I oppose the muslim extremists - surely utilising nationalism for our own purposes temporarily can be excused so long as something justifies the end result?

No.

You say you dont support Blair or the UK government, yet what you propose is exactly what they want, exactly what they propose, exactly what serves their interests.

And no, it is not possible to utilise nationalism for &#39;our own purposes temporarily&#39; - because nationalism will never be our tool - it&#39;s a ruling class tool of control, it serves to strengthen and maintain ruling class hegemony, it should be opposed, eliminated, not appropiated.


Originally posted by Okocim

The bnp is using this form of control (because that&#39;s what nationalism essentially is)

You admit that nationalism is a tool of control, yet you&#39;re advocating we use it???


Originally posted by Okocim

The left is loosing out on this support.

Losing on the support of nationalistic racists?

The answer is not to co-opt racist nationalism, but to oppose it, politically, and in the streets, with boots, to provide an alternative (and a logical/rational one at that) to the illogical ramblings of the nationalist parties.


Originally posted by Okocim

Rather than being able to tell the people the real cause of their suffering, the bnp are using nationalism to get to them first and to convince them that the cause in immigrants rather than capitalism. If the left was to seize onto this we could attract people and tell them the truth rather than leaving it to the bnp to lie through their teeth for every ounce of support they can get.

Of course this possible, but using the same hook (nationalism) as the BNP defeats the purpose.



[email protected]
Like rallying behind the national football team kind of thing; during the world cup plenty of coloured Brits wore the shirt and I think it shows a real ability to unify us, but without racism.

&#39;Brits&#39; should not be united as brits, but as working class people, nationalist unity is a reactionary sham, and the so-called &#39;coloured Brits&#39; know this better than perhaps anyone in the UK.



Red Tendency
Obviously, the first type should and will be destroyed. But the second type is not only harmless, but is good.

No.

There&#39;s no such thing as &#39;harmless&#39;, &#39;good&#39; nationalism, nationalism is an illogical, irrational ruling class concept - it serves to legitimise an oppressive state structure, homogenised ruling class &#39;culture&#39; and so forth.

[YSR]

I heart BD.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 14 2006, 03:06 PM
I heart BD.
I love him too :wub:

He makes such good points. Nationalism is so fucked up. States are arbitrary geographical regions. They have arbitrary governmental system. They oppress and are generally nasty.


Not matter what the arguments for states or nationalism, the bad in them out weighs the good.

[Hit The North]

I&#39;m astonished that Portillo&#39;s article was posted here for our serious consideration. It&#39;s just the usual British imperialist apologia that Portillo excels in - with a sneaky side order of anti-immigrant racism.

Okocim:

I oppose the muslim extremists for two reasons 1) it&#39;s religious 2) killing innocent civilians, who quite often disagree with the government to the same extent as those muslims, is totally wrong. I oppose nationalism for many reasons, but I think, like Lenin&#39;s money and other help from the German government, even our enemies can have their uses at times.

Lenin&#39;s position is only intelligable if you also accept his assertion that &#39;the enemy is at home&#39;. But you&#39;re arguing that the enemy is abroad. If you want to fight the islamicists then join the army. If you want to fight the imperialists then join a revolutionary organisation and work for the revolution.

But, please, don&#39;t invoke Lenin in order to justify an opportunistic support for nationalism which would be completely alien to his thinking.

[Okocim]

Black dagger: I&#39;ll address you later when I&#39;ve time to do it properly.


Originally posted by Citizen Zero+Aug 14 2006, 01:02 PM--> (Citizen Zero &#064; Aug 14 2006, 01:02 PM)I&#39;m astonished that Portillo&#39;s article was posted here for our serious consideration. It&#39;s just the usual British imperialist apologia that Portillo excels in - with a sneaky side order of anti-immigrant racism.[/b]

anti-immigrant racism? any chance you could quote that please? I don&#39;t recall noticing any.


Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 14 2006, 01:02 PM
Okocim:

I oppose the muslim extremists for two reasons 1) it&#39;s religious 2) killing innocent civilians, who quite often disagree with the government to the same extent as those muslims, is totally wrong. I oppose nationalism for many reasons, but I think, like Lenin&#39;s money and other help from the German government, even our enemies can have their uses at times.

Lenin&#39;s position is only intelligable if you also accept his assertion that &#39;the enemy is at home&#39;. But you&#39;re arguing that the enemy is abroad. If you want to fight the islamicists then join the army. If you want to fight the imperialists then join a revolutionary organisation and work for the revolution.

yes, the enemy is at home - the British government and ruling classes, however I believe the enemy is also abroad. I think it&#39;s foolish to not regard muslim extremists as our enemy as well - their loyalty lies in their god, as such I don&#39;t believe they could ever work with us successfully (as Galloway&#39;s respect party is trying to do). They neglect human rights, oppess people, are racist, sexist and homophobic in the same way as both the American and British government are.

I want to fight both the imperialists and the islamicists. Joining the army would be sacrificing myself for the bourgeois&#39; own ends. I don&#39;t believe in that.


Citizen [email protected] 14 2006, 01:02 PM
But, please, don&#39;t invoke Lenin in order to justify an opportunistic support for nationalism which would be completely alien to his thinking.

Just as Lenin&#39;s opportunitist acquisition of funds from the German government?

don&#39;t get my wrong; I wasn&#39;t using him to justify it, I&#39;m not at all sure of this idea myself, the Portillo article just made me think - I was using Lenin as an example of how sometimes it can be worthwhile for us to use the apparatus we&#39;re against in order to give a decent end result.

I don&#39;t know - I was just thinking, so don&#39;t slaughter me over it, I wanted to know what posters here thought. I&#39;ve yet to read Black Dagger&#39;s reply.

[RedCommieBear]

There&#39;s no such thing as &#39;harmless&#39;, &#39;good&#39; nationalism, nationalism is an illogical, irrational ruling class concept - it serves to legitimise an oppressive state structure, homogenised ruling class &#39;culture&#39; and so forth.

Being proud that your mom makes the best Lefse in the county cannot be compared to blowing up a building because you blindly support your government.


&#39;Brits&#39; should not be united as brits, but as working class people, nationalist unity is a reactionary sham, and the so-called &#39;coloured Brits&#39; know this better than perhaps anyone in the UK.

Are you saying we shouldn&#39;t be fans of local and national football teams? :)

(Note: Edited for spelling mistake)

[Hit The North]

Okocim:

anti-immigrant racism? any chance you could quote that please? I don&#39;t recall noticing any.

Portillo:

So those who argue that Britain has brought terror to its shores by supporting George W Bush should admit that we have imported it unwittingly by recognising our obligations to Commonwealth countries such as Pakistan, by pursuing liberal policies on immigration, by extending asylum to those who faced “persecution” without much reflection on why they found themselves in that position, and by ignoring the activities of “dissidents” based here, despite warnings about them from allies such as France and Saudi Arabia.

Duh.

BTW, RESPECT isn&#39;t trying to work with Islamic extremists - unless you think the entire Islamic community is extreme. But that would be a tad racist, so I&#39;m sure you don&#39;t.

[Okocim]

Black Dagger thanks for your reply, you made me think too.


Originally posted by Black Dagger+Aug 14 2006, 04:01 AM--> (Black Dagger &#064; Aug 14 2006, 04:01 AM)
Originally posted by Okocim+--> (Okocim)
there nationalism is clearly serving some decent purpose so I don&#39;t see why people on the left are so against it in all circumstances. Normally I am against it because it draws up borders between us, it leads to discrimination, racism and exclusion. It gives people like the BNP an excuse to act as they do.[/b]

Then you dont understand &#39;the left&#39; - or at least the revolutionaries. We oppose nationalism precisely for the reasons the author claims they are &#39;normally against&#39; it - but more importantly, because nationalism of any form - fosters a false identification with the nation-state, legitimises a false conception of history, and &#39;national culture&#39; - it is in reality, fostering an identification with the ruling class, with our rulers - because &#39;our nation&#39;, is headed by a state, a PM etc. - identifying with the nation-state is the anti-thesis of class consciousness, exploited peoples are united in their exploitation, not by the flag of a coloniser (as in the UK), or by a bourgeois government.[/b]

hmmm...a very good point.

You don&#39;t think it&#39;s possible to be united together as a country without identifying with the PM, queen, parliament, ruling class etc?


Originally posted by Black Dagger+Aug 14 2006, 04:01 AM--> (Black Dagger &#064; Aug 14 2006, 04:01 AM)
Originally posted by Okocim

However, Portillo is arguing its good points for usage in extraordinary situations like what we currently face.

Why should &#39;we&#39; unite? It is the state that has caused the problems that &#39;we face&#39; - it&#39;s the governments&#39; fault that there is a real and imagined &#39;threat&#39; of &#39;terrorism&#39; - british imperialism, US imperialism and so forth, has created the conditions, and the resentment which has fueled this international blowback, it is not the fault of working class people, and we must unite to overthrow the state, to oppose more wars of imperialism in the &#39;middle east&#39;, to withdraw their colonial garrisons etc.[/b]

I&#39;m not at all nationalistic to Britain nor would I ever be behind any of those groups I just mentioned. of course I realise who&#39;s fault it is that we are in this situation with bombs killing innocent civilians - and the people should be totally informed of that. They should be told from day one who took us up shit creek. But I thought perhaps there could be some kind of unity against the government which has done this to us?

If people realise that it&#39;s the government&#39;s fault then wouldn&#39;t they start to ask why is the government doing this to it&#39;s own people? the people are what makes up a state not the government so I thought maybe if the people were united then it wouldn&#39;t necessarily have to be behind the government as you are suggesting?



Originally posted by Black [email protected] 14 2006, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by Okocim

America hasn&#39;t had another attack on its soil possibly because of how the nation groups together,

Hello fallacy&#33;

You&#39;re (the author?) trying to make the point that nationalism is good, and that we should all &#39;unite&#39;, okay, but there is zero proof that firstly - the US is &#39;united&#39; (that is a straight up lie to begin with, the US is one of the most bitterly stratified societies on the planet), and secondly that there has not been any attacks on the US recently has ANYTHING at all to do with this idea of &#39;unity&#39; -

How exactly does national unity prevent terrorist attacks from happening?

That makes no fucking sense at all.

Perhaps there hasnt been any recent attacks, because the &#39;terrorist threat&#39; is over-hyped by &#39;our&#39; nation-states in order to justfiy wars of imperialism and a crack-down civil liberties, workers rights, unions etc. at &#39;home&#39;?

The &#39;war on terror&#39; has empowered states everywhere to increase their control over the population, in this context nationalism serves only to legitimise this repression, &#39;we must unite behind our government&#39; etc.

good point. point taken.


Originally posted by Black [email protected] 14 2006, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by Okocim

but Britain, we separate out looking for someone to blame. British people are blaming themselves, or the PM (though tbh it really is partly his fault), or the press, or America, rather than ignoring all this and simply grouping together to get through it. United we stand, divided we fall.

No.

Why should the people unite when the state/ruling class has caused these problems?

British people should be looking for someone to blame, they should get angry, and they should start looking at the fucking top, with the PM, with the government, with the ruling class who profit from the &#39;war on terror&#39;.

Ignoring WHY people in the &#39;middle east&#39; are &#39;angry&#39; is giving the ruling class and the state a free-pass to continue putting US in danger. After all, it&#39;s not the politicians or the rich fucks who die in &#39;terrorist attacks&#39; in the &#39;west&#39; is it?

The people should be united, but not around some bullshit nationalist rhetoric, but united to overthrow the state and ruling class that oppresses them and people around the world via imperialism, every fucking day.

Once we have divided ourselves, oppressed versus oppressor, the state, and capitalism will fall.

and how do you suggest we get the people to unite on those grounds?

(that sounds a little sarcastic..er...I like your points, I just want to know what you recommend instead. I&#39;m not entirely sure why I wrote that we shouldn&#39;t be blaming Blair - that makes absolutely no sense at all. :wacko: I apologize for that - should have proof read it/slept on the idea first)



Originally posted by Black [email protected] 14 2006, 04:01 AM

Okocim

I oppose the muslim extremists for two reasons 1) it&#39;s religious 2) killing innocent civilians,

Do you oppose the goverment for the same reasons?

They sure as hell enjoy killing innocent civilians, and the influence of &#39;christian morality&#39; and other bullshit superstitious nonsense has permeated most if not all &#39;western&#39; states.

yes, I completely oppose the government and their actions, and this "christian morality" nonsense. Though I oppose "islamic morality" nonsense in much the same way



Originally posted by Black Dagger+Aug 14 2006, 04:01 AM--> (Black Dagger &#064; Aug 14 2006, 04:01 AM)

Originally posted by Okocim

So...thoughts? Please don&#39;t simply resort to calling me reactionist trash.

I&#39;m sorry, but that&#39;s what this is - a call to nationalism of any form, is a call to reaction.[/b]

stalin did it.



Originally posted by Black [email protected] 14 2006, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by Okocim

I oppose the current UK government and certainly don&#39;t want to be supporting Blair, however I oppose the muslim extremists - surely utilising nationalism for our own purposes temporarily can be excused so long as something justifies the end result?

No.

You say you dont support Blair or the UK government, yet what you propose is exactly what they want, exactly what they propose, exactly what serves their interests.

so why are they trying to stamp it out in this country?



Originally posted by Black [email protected] 14 2006, 04:01 AM
And no, it is not possible to utilise nationalism for &#39;our own purposes temporarily&#39; - because nationalism will never be our tool - it&#39;s a ruling class tool of control, it serves to strengthen and maintain ruling class hegemony, it should be opposed, eliminated, not appropiated.


Originally posted by Okocim

The bnp is using this form of control (because that&#39;s what nationalism essentially is)

You admit that nationalism is a tool of control, yet you&#39;re advocating we use it???

we use it to gain their attention and support.



Originally posted by Black [email protected] 14 2006, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by Okocim

The left is loosing out on this support.

Losing on the support of nationalistic racists?

The answer is not to co-opt racist nationalism, but to oppose it, politically, and in the streets, with boots, to provide an alternative (and a logical/rational one at that) to the illogical ramblings of the nationalist parties.

of course. smash the fascists and nazi bnp on the streets BUT I do not think all nationalism is necessarily racist. I think you are wrong there - again I point at Stalin. for all his faults he did manage to maintain the country and it wasn&#39;t through racist nationalism.



Originally posted by Black [email protected] 14 2006, 04:01 AM

Okocim

Rather than being able to tell the people the real cause of their suffering, the bnp are using nationalism to get to them first and to convince them that the cause in immigrants rather than capitalism. If the left was to seize onto this we could attract people and tell them the truth rather than leaving it to the bnp to lie through their teeth for every ounce of support they can get.

Of course this possible, but using the same hook (nationalism) as the BNP defeats the purpose.

again, I ask for your thoughts on what any other hook could be?



Black [email protected] 14 2006, 04:01 AM


Okocim
Like rallying behind the national football team kind of thing; during the world cup plenty of coloured Brits wore the shirt and I think it shows a real ability to unify us, but without racism.

&#39;Brits&#39; should not be united as brits, but as working class people, nationalist unity is a reactionary sham, and the so-called &#39;coloured Brits&#39; know this better than perhaps anyone in the UK.

do they? I&#39;m white, I&#39;m not of British origin, but I think that depends which groups you talk to. If you talk to Sikhs who came here in the 60&#39;s many are apparently "more british" than the brits (I forget where this expression is from, sorry). however if you talk to the muslims from the 80s it appears they&#39;re being neglected and alienated despite being working class in many cases.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 14 2006, 04:52 PM
Okocim:

anti-immigrant racism? any chance you could quote that please? I don&#39;t recall noticing any.

Portillo:

So those who argue that Britain has brought terror to its shores by supporting George W Bush should admit that we have imported it unwittingly by recognising our obligations to Commonwealth countries such as Pakistan, by pursuing liberal policies on immigration, by extending asylum to those who faced “persecution” without much reflection on why they found themselves in that position, and by ignoring the activities of “dissidents” based here, despite warnings about them from allies such as France and Saudi Arabia.

Duh.

BTW, RESPECT isn&#39;t trying to work with Islamic extremists - unless you think the entire Islamic community is extreme. But that would be a tad racist, so I&#39;m sure you don&#39;t.
hmmmm...I seem to have skipped that bit. Point taken. thank you.


No, I don&#39;t think so. But thanks for trying to make me out as a racist. I knw the islamic community aren&#39;t all extremists and extremists make up a tiny minority, but in my view anyone who holds their god that dear like muslims do, cannot be an ally of the left on the fact that they always have a split alligance. I would think the same if respect were trying to appeal to christians or jews.

[Hit The North]

No, I don&#39;t think so. But thanks for trying to make me out as a racist. I knw the islamic community aren&#39;t all extremists and extremists make up a tiny minority, but in my view anyone who holds their god that dear like muslims do, cannot be an ally of the left on the fact that they always have a split alligance. I would think the same if respect were trying to appeal to christians or jews.

I wasn&#39;t trying to make you out a racist, comrade. The rest of your points are good. I too am uneasy when I see groups like the SWP offering rooms for muslims to pray in during their Marxism conference this year. Nevertheless, if we can create an organised poll of attraction to socialist ideas within the Muslim community by engaging with it then we&#39;re doing our job as socialists.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 14 2006, 05:36 PM
I wasn&#39;t trying to make you out a racist, comrade. The rest of your points are good. I too am uneasy when I see groups like the SWP offering rooms for muslims to pray in during their Marxism conference this year. Nevertheless, if we can create an organised poll of attraction to socialist ideas within the Muslim community by engaging with it then we&#39;re doing our job as socialists.
ok, it&#39;s cool then. :)

That&#39;s not so bad - many muslims will be working class and it&#39;s good if we can help them by doing something small like accomodating them during Marxism 06. However I don&#39;t think this is what Respect are doing, they&#39;re not stopping at accomodating them, Respect appear to be gearing their whole campaign towards muslims.

[YSR]

Originally posted by Okocim
stalin did it.

Dude, Stalin was an anti-worker fuck. Why would you want to copy him?

[Okocim]

Originally posted by Young Stupid Radical+Aug 14 2006, 06:40 PM--> (Young Stupid Radical @ Aug 14 2006, 06:40 PM)
Okocim
stalin did it.

Dude, Stalin was an anti-worker fuck. Why would you want to copy him? [/b]
I don&#39;t like Stalin - I only used him as an example.

BD said nationalism is necessarily reactionism (or words with that effect); I don&#39;t think that Stalin was a reactionist but he did use nationalism.

[apathy maybe]

&#39;Cause Stalin was a reactionary. He increased the power of the state, insituted a cult of worship around himself, killed of heaps of people who were no threat to him.

He was an anti worker fuck who should have been shot with Lenin during the civil war.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Okocim+--> (Okocim)you don&#39;t think it&#39;s possible to be united together as a country without identifying with the PM, queen, parliament, ruling class etc?[/b]

No.

But i do think its possible to unite the people of a country, not as a &#39;country&#39; as but as working class people.


Originally posted by Okocim+--> (Okocim)But I thought perhaps there could be some kind of unity against the government which has done this to us?[/b]

Of course, but that sort of unity has nothing to do with nationalism or the nation-state, uniting against the government should be anti-nationalist, anti-statist.


Originally posted by Okocim

If people realise that it&#39;s the government&#39;s fault then wouldn&#39;t they start to ask why is the government doing this to it&#39;s own people? the people are what makes up a state not the government so I thought maybe if the people were united then it wouldn&#39;t necessarily have to be behind the government as you are suggesting?

If people ask &#39;why is the government doing this to its own people?&#39; we need to say that this is because the government, the ruling class, has no &#39;people&#39; - they are for themselves, they govern for themselves and their own interests.

As ive said, there is nothing negative about uniting the people against the government, merely that this should be done along class lines, not in the language of nationalism, not about &#39;our country&#39;, but about our freedom, freedom from capitalist exploitation and subjection to oppressive authority and hiearchies (the state).


Originally posted by Okocim

and how do you suggest we get the people to unite on those grounds?

Along class lines.

That is, to make it clear that the nation-state system, that capitalism, is rigged against us, that it is a system used by a ruling elite to control and exploit the majority of the population - US.

That there are real alternatives to &#39;representative&#39; democracy and capitalism, that real democracy is not voting for the &#39;lesser of two evils&#39;, but having real - direct control of your own life, your own work place, your own community. That is direct-democracy and workers self-management.

That capitalism is not a natural state of affairs, and that the producers - the working class, the people who dont own enough not to need to work, that we should control and enjoy the benefits of the fruits of our own labour, that we should manage our production, not the bosses, and not the rich.


Originally posted by Okocim

stalin did it.

And Stalin was a reactionary?

National socialism, socialism in one country, whatever, is not progressive, even if it has the word &#39;socialism&#39; attached to it. Communism is an inherently internationalist philosophy, our people are the global oppressed, not just those who live within the artificial border of &#39;our&#39; nation-state.


Originally posted by Okocim
so why are they trying to stamp it out in this country?

I&#39;m not sure what you are referring to? Who do you mean when you say &#39;they&#39;? And what are &#39;they&#39; trying to stamp out?


Originally posted by Okocim

we use it to gain their attention and support.

Exactly and like i said in my last post,

It is not possible to utilise nationalism for &#39;our own purposes temporarily&#39; - because nationalism will never be our tool - it&#39;s a ruling class tool of control, it serves to strengthen and maintain ruling class hegemony, it should be opposed, eliminated, not appropiated.

Utilising a tool of the oppressors to dupe working people is the wrong way to go, working class people should not be duped, we have to be honest and forward with our demands, not couch them in the reactionary language of the ruling class.



Originally posted by Okocim
BUT I do not think all nationalism is necessarily racist. I think you are wrong there - again I point at Stalin. for all his faults he did manage to maintain the country and it wasn&#39;t through racist nationalism.

There is undoubtedly a connection between nationalism and racism, but even if you do not think that nationalism is &#39;necessarily racist&#39; - so what? Non-racist nationalism is still not progressive.

Fostering an identification with a national &#39;leader&#39; or nation-state, an imagined and homogenised - and thus exclusionary - conception of national history and national culture, creates a national identity that separates the interests of the domestic working class from the global oppressed, it does not build international solidarity. &#39;They&#39; do not share share &#39;our&#39; history, or &#39;our&#39; culture - this is divisive and and counterposed to the idea of an international working class movement, of international revolution and anarchism/communism.


Originally posted by Okocim
again, I ask for your thoughts on what any other hook could be?

Class.

Anti-capitalism, anti-statism, anti-liberalism, anti-reformism, anti-nationalism.


[email protected]
do they? I&#39;m white, I&#39;m not of British origin, but I think that depends which groups you talk to.

Of course, white people tend to not see &#39;racial&#39; division, or institutionalised racism in a society that is dominated by white people, they tend not to see their own privilege and how this effects others.


Okocim

If you talk to Sikhs who came here in the 60&#39;s many are apparently "more british" than the brits (I forget where this expression is from, sorry). however if you talk to the muslims from the 80s it appears they&#39;re being neglected and alienated despite being working class in many cases.

This is because the Sikhs you are talking about have probably assimilated to varying degrees into white british society, assimilation into a homogenised (white) national culture and identity is not the solution - we need to abolish the idea of a homogenised national culture and identity.