To the Members of the Communist League

[Leo]

Open Letter to the Members of the Communist League

Introduction

During the recent discussions concerning the situation in Lebanon and especially the conflict between Israel and Hizbullah, The Communist League was one of the few organizations that seemed to take a class based perspective, denouncing both Israel and Hizbullah. Despite differences we had with them (which will be mentioned in the context of our letter) we decided that Communist League was a group which was worth attention, and after looking through their web site we decided to write an open letter to the members of the Communist League in hopes of having constructive discussions following League members’ replies.

‘Communism’ and the Communist League

As its name makes it clear, The Communist League claims to be a communist organization. The definition of communist theory and communist practice are acceptable, to say the least. The CL doesn’t give a clear definition on what communism is, which is directly related to how it will be reached, however they give hints of their awareness of this, every time they talk about workers liberating themselves from capitalism. Most importantly, while saying “As part of the work to build this movement, we support our brothers and sisters when they fight for immediate goals, while pointing out that we all must look higher and farther if we are to really win something lasting.” (The Communist League: Who We Are, Where We Stand) they come really close to saying that workers struggles for their daily interests are at the center of the Communist program. Those positions which the CL doesn’t put together, comes pretty close to our definition of Communism: “Communism is not a beautiful utopia that someday can be reached, nor a theory that’s necessity is scientifically proven, but it is the struggle of workers for their own interests as a movement. In that sense, communism has no relation to the leftist’s definition of it. It is rather born out of the workers’ struggle for their daily interests, and an expression of their need for emancipation from wage labour, capital, and the state. Due to that, it is denial of all the separations between intellectuals and workers, absolute goals, and daily interests, ‘trade union’ consciousness and ‘socialist consciousness’, and aims and means. Whenever workers start to struggle for their own interests autonomously from the unions and self-proclaimed workers’ parties, then communism flowers inside the struggle. In the same way the communist organisation is formed organically inside this struggle, and is born from the international union of the most radical, and determined minorities’ interventions in the class struggle, which express the antagonism between workers and capital.”(Basic Principles of the Enternasyonalist Komünist Sol) Most importantly, as stated before, the CL does take a class based perspective instead of a nation based perspective as mentioned here: “We reach across national borders and seek to unite working people, regardless of the “homeland,” “motherland” or “fatherland” the capitalists tell them they have, and regardless of whether or not they are seen by the capitalists as “illegal.” (The Communist League: Who We Are, Where We Stand) All those positions make it clear that it would be unfair to say that the Communist League is not influenced by communist ideas.

‘Leftism’ and the Communist League

Yet, the Communist League has some aspects that would make it hard to call it completely communist. Unfortunately, as they are influenced by communism, the CL has some influences from leftism as well. One look at the ‘Links of Interest’ would make the viewer really suprised as a matter of fact, because there are links for Prol-Position News which is a left/council communist publication, CPGB which consists of Tankie Stalinists, the Irish Republican Socialist Movement, a nationalist organization with very left rhetoric and the Worker Communist Party of Iraq which can be considered as the most “leftest of leftist (left capitalist)” groups shown by the thick cult of personality around its leader and its Stalinist organizational methods. This is indeed a very surprising list of links of interests, as not only is it simply impossible to agree with all of those groups, but it is unimaginable for a group to be ‘allies’ of or ‘sympathetic to’ all those groups from incredibly different traditions. Another interesting thing in the IWPA, which consists of FPM which is considered Castroite, the DWPA which is considered electoralist and the CL which doesn’t claim a tradition. Finally, the CL is really tolerant to its members beliefs, it accepts members from Maoist, Trotskyist or official Communist party traditions and respects the beliefs of those members, no matter how far away from a class base their perspective is, regardless of their support for reactionary nationalists who divide the working class into specific groups etc. It is well know (and will be mentioned) that the CL has a workers only policy against petty-bourgeois infiltration, but it seems very possible that they will have to deal with ideological infiltration in the future, which is a really big problem for an organization trying to be genuinely communist. Finally, CL has some amounts of reformism within itself, with leftist demands for more democracy and rights, where we think a communist organization should only focus on the workers struggle and while dealing with realistic demands, should not talk about bourgeois concepts such as ‘rights’ and ‘democracy’. All those signs show us that the CL faces the threat of becoming some sort of a bourgeois political party, reaching to a point where they recruit members only for the sake of recruiting them, where they make alliances only for the sake of making them and so forth. Yet this is not to say that the CL should not be overly-selective and turn in to a club where everyone agrees on every bit of theory. However, there should be some simple basis of agreement while recruiting members, otherwise the CL can turn into just another leftist party without anything about communism in it left except the rhetoric.

Workers Only?

One of the most interesting ideas of the CL was the one about petty-bourgeois infiltration while explaining the problem with the Soviet Russia and the communist movement in general. And as a result of this idea, the CL decided to be an organization of workers only. This is indeed a new idea, however, one problem with it is that there is one flaw with the analysis that petty-bourgeois infiltration occurred in the Soviet Russia, and it is that it happened due to the way the revolution was carried out. After taking power, the Bolsheviks did not crush the state, but tried to use it for their own purposes. As it was impossible to make things work by themselves, they needed to let the petty-bourgeois, middle cadres in, they needed to let old army officers in etc. Of course this is not to say that the petty-bourgeois should be let in, but it is to say that for individuals who know the members of the communist organization, who agree with the communist organization’s methods and who want to become militants, exceptions can be made. After all Marx and Engels were not workers, they started as privileged students, but they managed to gain the trust of the workers by working for them.

Conclusion

To conclude, we think that the CL is in between leftism and communism, with its members scattered on both sides. For example while the CL’s spokes person Miles says that he comes from Myasnikov’s tradition (who comes from the Russian Communist Left),which seemed to take working class-based perspectives with regards to the issues in Lebanon, the League also has members who support the national division of the working class in the Middle East by supporting Hizbullah.

In Solidarity

Leo Uilleann

EKS

[Martin Blank]

Dear comrades,

We are in receipt of your letter. The Central Committee will draft a response and respond as soon as possible. In the meantime, we are sure that our members will submit their own personal comments on the content of this letter.

With communist greetings,
Miles, for the League (IWPA)
http://www.communistleague.org/

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+--> (Leo Uilleann)The CL doesn’t give a clear definition on what communism is, which is directly related to how it will be reached, however they give hints of their awareness of this, every time they talk about workers liberating themselves from capitalism.[/b]

I can't be arsed to re-read it, but I think you'll find some, if not all of your queries answered in this piece: What is Communism? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46927&view=findpost&p=1292028245) Though, and Miles will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong, I think that piece is a IWPA piece and not a specifically Communist League piece.


Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+--> (Leo Uilleann)....CPGB which consists of Tankie Stalinists....[/b]

It's a link to the Weekly Worker, which is a pretty decent newspaper. Certainly, their series on Scottish Nationalism would have pleased you.


Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
and the Worker Communist Party of Iraq which can be considered as the most “leftest of leftist (left capitalist)” groups shown by the thick cult of personality around its leader and its Stalinist organizational methods.

What "leader" are you referring too? Hekmat? Modaressi? Someone else? :unsure:

I've never really got why yourself, the ICC and so on don't like the WCPI. I read the article on the ICC's website and, to be honest, it just seemed like a poor hatchet job....and I don't see how they are "Stalinist" in any meaningful way. Though you could maybe make a comparison with the mid-thirties CPGB, but even that would be a stretch.

Maybe it's a factional thing? Are you linked to the Left Worker-Communist Party of Iraq in some way?


Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
This is indeed a very surprising list of links of interests....

And?

From the site: Note: The Communist League takes no responsibility for the content of the following websites. We offer links to them as a courtesy to you. If you would like your link added, or have a correction to a listed link, please contact us. [Source (http://www.communistleague.org/page.php?22).]

I don't think they're endorsements, just, well, "links of interest". Certainly, I don't think any great political analysis can be made from a set of links. I mean, they host a video on there from a group that, unless I'm mistaken, they're at loggerheads with because of the way it treated some of its Ugandan (?) members/ex-members. So, to me anyway, that just suggests that there's nothing deeper going on here.


Leo [email protected]
However, there should be some simple basis of agreement while recruiting members....

Actually, this is something I was thinking about the other day....and I was going to sign up at the CL forums and make a thread. But I may as well bring it up here, been as it's already been touched on. Basically, I was wondering what kind of minimum theoretical requirements the CL has. Meaning, for instance, do CL members have to share a similar view on certain historical events? Like, for example, Hungary 1956. Or is any view acceptable here?


Leo Uilleann
....exceptions can be made.

Or maybe, instead of exceptions being made, those that "want to become militants" need to make certain sacrifices?

[Leo]

Originally posted by AS+--> (AS)I can't be arsed to re-read it, but I think you'll find some, if not all of your queries answered in this piece[/b]

They give a definition of the communist theory and the communist society.


Originally posted by [email protected]
The definition of communist theory and communist practice are acceptable, to say the least. The CL doesn’t give a clear definition on what communism is, which is directly related to how it will be reached, however they give hints of their awareness of this, every time they talk about workers liberating themselves from capitalism.


AS
What "leader" are you referring too? Hekmat?

Yep


I've never really got why yourself, the ICC and so on don't like the WCPI. I read the article on the ICC's website and, to be honest, it just seemed like a poor hatchet job....and I don't see how they are "Stalinist" in any meaningful way.

It is organizational methods.


Maybe it's a factional thing? Are you linked to the Left Worker-Communist Party of Iraq in some way?

No.


And?

From the site: Note: The Communist League takes no responsibility for the content of the following websites. We offer links to them as a courtesy to you. If you would like your link added, or have a correction to a listed link, please contact us.

It shows that they have contacts and friendly relationships with the mentioned groups.


Or maybe, instead of exceptions being made, those that "want to become militants" need to make certain sacrifices?

Being a militant is making a sacrifice. Being a militant is giving up at least certain luxuries of life. If the organization is succesful, being a militant can be very dangerous, even if the organization does not have criminal activity. Lenin's definition of militants was pretty good If I recall correctly.

[KC]

I can't be arsed to re-read it, but I think you'll find some, if not all of your queries answered in this piece: What is Communism? Though, and Miles will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong, I think that piece is a IWPA piece and not a specifically Communist League piece.

Actually, that's a League piece. You can find it on the League site here (http://www.communistleague.org/page.php?5).



I don't think they're endorsements, just, well, "links of interest". Certainly, I don't think any great political analysis can be made from a set of links. I mean, they host a video on there from a group that, unless I'm mistaken, they're at loggerheads with because of the way it treated some of its Ugandan (?) members/ex-members. So, to me anyway, that just suggests that there's nothing deeper going on here.

You are exactly right.


Basically, I was wondering what kind of minimum theoretical requirements the CL has.

Members must read, understand and agree with the Basic Principles as well as the League Bulletins and the Action Platform.


Meaning, for instance, do CL members have to share a similar view on certain historical events?

No.



It shows that they have contacts and friendly relationships with the mentioned groups.

It shows that the links are interesting and we decided to put them up on our site.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

which consists of FPM which is considered Castroite

:lol: Considered "Castroite" by who?

It should be pointed out, and this is to detract nothing from the comrades in the CL, the FPM has had a workers only policy since its founding, which occured before the founding of the CL (though I do believe they were beginning to organize at the time).


Actually, that's a League piece. You can find it on the League site here.

You can also find it on other IWPA affiliates' sites. It was designed as an "open source" piece for use by all IWPA affiliates.

[Leo]

It shows that the links are interesting and we decided to put them up on our site.

Well obviously, that what "Links of Intersts" means and our question was: "How did you manage to find both the tankie CPGB and left communist ProlPostion interesting enough to put them to your site?" I think it still remains valid.

PS. The ideological and practical differences are so clear between those groups that I don't want to write here to prevent insulting readers intelligence.

[Leo]

Considered "Castroite" by who?

That is the impression given to, ah, shall we say public opinion? Probably caused by things such as Cuba Truth Project, you own signature etc.

Yet notice that we did not say that it is "Castroite", we said that it was "considered".


It should be pointed out, and this is to detract nothing from the comrades in the CL, the FPM has had a workers only policy since its founding, which occured before the founding of the CL (though I do believe they were beginning to organize at the time).

I didn't know that.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Well now you do ;)

It's pretty clearly displayed in our program, which is on the site.


That is the impression given to, ah, shall we say public opinion? Probably caused by things such as Cuba Truth Project, you own signature etc.

So... anyone that collects (or displays in their signature) sourced facts about Cuba is a "Castroite"?

How does a "Castroite" differ from say a "Marxist-Leninist"?


Yet notice that we did not say that it is "Castroite", we said that it was "considered".

I'm just trying to figure out who considers us that.. cause I haven't heard it that often. Cuba is a socialist state, but we do also have differences with the PCC.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 31 2006, 07:54 PM
Yet, the Communist League has some aspects that would make it hard to call it completely communist. Unfortunately, as they are influenced by communism, the CL has some influences from leftism as well. One look at the ‘Links of Interest’ would make the viewer really suprised as a matter of fact, because there are links for Prol-Position News which is a left/council communist publication, CPGB which consists of Tankie Stalinists, the Irish Republican Socialist Movement, a nationalist organization with very left rhetoric and the Worker Communist Party of Iraq which can be considered as the most “leftest of leftist (left capitalist)” groups shown by the thick cult of personality around its leader and its Stalinist organizational methods.
The Irish Republican Socialist Movement, of which I'm a member, is not 'nationalist'. It's clear that you don't know anything about objective conditions in Ireland.

The IRSM is one of the most solidly working class movements I've come across (remember them - the workers you like to talk about?) which is why we've had friendly relations with the CL and FPM.

People talking on the net about the working class for page after page won't achieve a lot. Workers who are willing to fight and die for their class as the IRSM have will - while you continue to talk about it. ;)

[Marion]

Thanks for the info, PRC-UTE. Must admit I don't know anything really about your movement so any info is most helpful.

Out of interest, how do you reconcile:

The Irish Republican Socialist Movement, of which I'm a member, is not 'nationalist'.
with the statements in your signature that it is:

preparing the basic structures for an Irish Workers' Republic.
and that

support for National Liberation is Internationalism.

Any help gratefully appreciated...

[KC]

preparing the basic structures for an Irish Workers' Republic.

How is this nationalist? Obviously an organization based in Ireland is going to work towards creating a workers state within Ireland.


support for National Liberation is Internationalism.

When the working class of one country emancipates itself it furthers the working class movement internationally.

[Leo]

The Irish Republican Socialist Movement, of which I'm a member, is not 'nationalist'. It's clear that you don't know anything about objective conditions in Ireland.

Oh, trust me I do.


The IRSM is one of the most solidly working class movements I've come across (remember them - the workers you like to talk about?) which is why we've had friendly relations with the CL and FPM.

To correct a misunderstanding, people call any movement that is supported by the workers a "workers movement", this is quite wrong, a workers movement is a struggle done by the workers (only) to raise the standarts of their everyday life, their daily interests etc.


People talking on the net about the working class for page after page won't achieve a lot. Workers who are willing to fight and die for their class as the IRSM have will - while you continue to talk about it.

First of all, and I am really tired of this, stop attacking people because they are writing on the net. Everyone in this site is writing on the net, yourself included, this doesn't mean that the revolutionary activities of anyone is limited to writing here.


The Irish Republican Socialist Movement, of which I'm a member, is not 'nationalist'.


preparing the basic structures for an Irish Workers' Republic.


support for National Liberation is Internationalism.

I'm sorry but support for national liberation is nationalism, and it has nothing to do with internationalism. National liberation is impossible, support for national liberation is workers lining up behind the national flag instead of fighting for their own need and I know much about national liberation movements as a Kurd, yet this is not the place to discuss such matters. If you want to continue this discussion, please split the thread.

[KC]

I'm sorry but support for national liberation is nationalism, and it has nothing to do with internationalism. National liberation is impossible, support for national liberation is workers lining up behind the national flag instead of fighting for their own need and I know much about national liberation movements as a Kurd, yet this is not the place to discuss such matters. If you want to continue this discussion, please split the thread.

Emancipation of the working class will happen on a nation-by-nation basis so most of your post is crap. Also, you can't compare the IRSP working towards establishing a workers state with the Kurds working towards establishing their own state. They're completely different.

[Leo]

Well now you do

It's pretty clearly displayed in our program, which is on the site.

Yeah, we haven't really looked much into your site as this open letter was about the CL, but thanks for the info.


So... anyone that collects (or displays in their signature) sourced facts about Cuba is a "Castroite"?

Maybe that Nelson Mandela quote had a bigger effect.


How does a "Castroite" differ from say a "Marxist-Leninist"?

Well, you'll have to ask that to other Marxist-Leninists who don't like Castro and Cuba.

[Leo]

Emancipation of the working class will happen on a nation-by-nation basis so most of your post is crap.

What an easy arguement to disregard the lives of millions of workers, died behind their national flag for their own, local national bourgeoise or murdered by it. But oh no, "Emancipation of the working class will happen on a nation-by-nation basis" so lets support all the national liberation movements who push workers away from their own interests and line them behind the national flag. Easy as that, politically the right move, it gets you friends, doesn't require much thinking I persume but you have no idea what you are talking about KC.


Also, you can't compare the IRSP working towards establishing a workers state with the Kurds working towards establishing their own state. They're completely different.

IRSP might have a left-er rhetoric than the Kurds in Iraq, but I can pretty easilily compare them to Kurds in Turkey.

[KC]

What an easy arguement to disregard the lives of millions of workers, died behind their national flag for their own, local national bourgeoise or murdered by it. But oh no, "Emancipation of the working class will happen on a nation-by-nation basis" so lets support all the national liberation movements who push workers away from their own interests and line them behind the national flag. Easy as that, politically the right move, it gets you friends, doesn't require much thinking I persume but you have no idea what you are talking about KC.

You're completely failing to understand/comprehend what I'm saying (not surprising). Workers revolutions occur on a nation-by-nation basis. I don't see how I could make this any clearer than that. Why is this? Because different nations have different material conditions. This is very simple to understand, so what's the problem here?

[Leo]

Originally posted by KC+--> (KC)You're completely failing to understand/comprehend what I'm saying (not surprising).[/b]

<_< Oh, just try to be civil at least in this thread. I now that insulting people deeply satisfies you, but I&#39;m sure if you try hard enough, you can hold for a little bit.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Workers revolutions occur on a nation-by-nation basis. I don&#39;t see how I could make this any clearer than that. Why is this? Because different nations have different material conditions. This is very simple to understand, so what&#39;s the problem here?

The problem was that you justified supporting national liberation movements by saying that emancipation the working class will happen on a nation-by-nation basis, that was the problem, and I made it clear in my post:


Leo
But oh no, "Emancipation of the working class will happen on a nation-by-nation basis" so lets support all the national liberation movements who push workers away from their own interests and line them behind the national flag.

[KC]

If you deny the fact that workers revolutions will happen on a nation-by-nation basis, then you&#39;re failing to understand the most basic workings of capitalism and the material conditions present within it. What, you think it&#39;s going to happen globally all at once? Keep dreaming. :rolleyes:


But oh no, "Emancipation of the working class will happen on a nation-by-nation basis" so lets support all the national liberation movements who push workers away from their own interests and line them behind the national flag.

Bourgeois national liberation movements are completely different than proletarian ones (which strive to establish a workers state).

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+--> (Leo Uilleann)Yep[/b]

Do they really have a "thick cult of personality around [Hekmat]"? Sure, they thing he&#39;s an important theorist who made useful contributions, and having read a little bit of his work, they have a point, but does that count as a "cult of personality"? I mean, possibly, their promotion of Hekmat is a bit too eager, for want of a better word, but I don&#39;t think it&#39;s comparable to the way, say, the RCP promotes Bob Avakian.

Though, maybe the "cult of personality" is a problem with the Worker-Communist Party of Iran - Hekmatist and the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq, but I don&#39;t think that the same criticism could be made of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran and Left Worker-Communist Party of Iraq. But, and I&#39;m speculating here, wouldn&#39;t you make the same criticism of both trends?


Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+--> (Leo Uilleann)It is organizational methods.[/b]

In what way? Personally, if I had to compare their methods to any of the historical trends, then I&#39;d say that they have more in common with Bolshevik-Leninist/Trotskyist praxis than "Stalinist" praxis. But, still, from what I know of them, their practical and theoretical positions, particularly with regards the ongoing situation in Iraq, seem significantly to the left of anything in the Marxist-Leninist tradition.


Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad
It should be pointed out, and this is to detract nothing from the comrades in the CL, the FPM has had a workers only policy since its founding....

Fuey.


Originally posted by Wikipedia
It also sets itself apart in that it only lets members of the working class and their allies become members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_People%27s_Movement


FPM website; "Join Us" [email protected]
Membership Requirements
To join you must meet the following requirements:

1. You are not a police officer, member of armed forces, government official, or boss.

http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?8


FPM website; Manifesto of the Free People&#39;s Movement
We, the Free People&#39;s Movement, unite as an international revolutionary movement of the working class and its allies in our common struggle for freedom, justice, and equality. We demand and fight for freedom from the exploitative and oppressive capitalist system; justice, in inalienable human rights for all human beings, and both political and economic equality for all.

http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?12

No mention of "a workers only policy", just a policy of allowing "the working class and its allies" to join. And the "allies" bit is, well, rather ambiguous, to say the least. After all, the SWP [USA] allows "allies" of the working class to join....and these "allies", just happen to live in Manhattan apartments.

[Comrade-Z]

Emancipation of the working class will happen on a nation-by-nation basis so most of your post is crap.

I would disagree. I would say working class emanicipation will happen where material conditions are the same. This is not necessarily nation-by-nation because there can be huge disparities in development within a single nation (India and China are the most extreme examples of this--I can foresee a situation in 30 years where the eastern coastal cities of China experience proletarian upheavals and break-away from the rest of the country, unless the Chinese government can get development progressing in a more even manner, which they are trying to do. I can see the same thing happening in the U.S.--the northeast/greatlakes/Canadian urban sector and the west coast both break off from the backwards interior.)

I also think it is likely that when Ireland revolts, the low countries, GB, and France will revolt as well.


Bourgeois national liberation movements are completely different than proletarian ones (which strive to establish a workers state).

I guess we should ask this question:

Is there anything to be gained by stressing nationalism among the Irish Republicans? When revolution comes around, all oppressors will be swept away anyways, regardless of their nationality. Decrying British imperialism is kinda redundant at this point. All of capitalism&#39;s imperialism, both foreign and domestic, will be swept away. Unless you think that having British masters is worse than having Irish masters, unless you think that British imperialism is worse than home-grown imperialism. I get the feeling that, even if you don&#39;t think that, a lot of the potential supporters of the Irish Republicans believe that (and lack the class consciousness to perceive otherwise--which is a problem), and thus the Irish Republicans feel that they need to stress this line to scoop up those less conscious members (which, is degrading one&#39;s theory (reformism) in order to attract support worth it?

[Leo]

Originally posted by AS+--> (AS)Do they really have a "thick cult of personality around [Hekmat]"?[/b]

Yeah they do actually. Take a look at their web site, pictures give it away.

http://www.wpiran.org/English/english.htm


Originally posted by AS+--> (AS) In what way? Personally, if I had to compare their methods to any of the historical trends, then I&#39;d say that they have more in common with Bolshevik-Leninist/Trotskyist praxis than "Stalinist" praxis. But, still, from what I know of them, their practical and theoretical positions, particularly with regards the ongoing situation in Iraq, seem significantly to the left of anything in the Marxist-Leninist tradition.[/b]

Theoretically they are more &#39;left&#39; than most if not all Trots, however their organizational methods are much tighter than Trotskyist mass party wannabes, what their Central Commitee wants happens.


Originally posted by KC
If you deny the fact that workers revolutions will happen on a nation-by-nation basis

We can&#39;t make a generalization on this rule, material conditions are too complex for that. For example in Spain, Basque or Catalan workers won&#39;t have their revolution seperately from the Spanish workers because they will be figting the same enemy, the same local bourgeoise, the Spanish which is mostly dominant but also other bourgeois nationalist quasi-states.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
I would say working class emanicipation will happen where material conditions are the same. This is not necessarily nation-by-nation because there can be huge disparities in development within a single nation (India and China are the most extreme examples of this--I can foresee a situation in 30 years where the eastern coastal cities of China experience proletarian upheavals and break-away from the rest of the country, unless the Chinese government can get development progressing in a more even manner, which they are trying to do. I can see the same thing happening in the U.S.--the northeast/greatlakes/Canadian urban sector and the west coast both break off from the backwards interior.)

This is also true, and a good point.


Originally posted by KC
then you&#39;re failing to understand the most basic workings of capitalism and the material conditions present within it. What, you think it&#39;s going to happen globally all at once? Keep dreaming.

I of course don&#39;t think it will happen globally at once, but rather than saying it will happen nationally, I say that it will depends on the common local enemies workers need to overcome.


[email protected]
Bourgeois national liberation movements are completely different than proletarian ones (which strive to establish a workers state).

No matter how "left" the rhetoric is, national liberation is impossibe and is an idea which always serves the local national bourgeoise. It was understandable for major national liberation movements to have leftist rhetorics in the past as they were supported by states like USSR, China etc. Now even the leftest national liberation movements are dropping their leftist rhetoric, and the capitalist left sells itself to Hizbullah by becoming their faithful cheerleaders in the west.


Comrade&#045;Z
Is there anything to be gained by stressing nationalism among the Irish Republicans? When revolution comes around, all oppressors will be swept away anyways, regardless of their nationality. Decrying British imperialism is kinda redundant at this point. All of capitalism&#39;s imperialism, both foreign and domestic, will be swept away. Unless you think that having British masters is worse than having Irish masters, unless you think that British imperialism is worse than home-grown imperialism. I get the feeling that, even if you don&#39;t think that, a lot of the potential supporters of the Irish Republicans believe that (and lack the class consciousness to perceive otherwise--which is a problem), and thus the Irish Republicans feel that they need to stress this line to scoop up those less conscious members (which, is degrading one&#39;s theory (reformism) in order to attract support worth it?

This was a good post Comrade-Z :)

[LoneRed]

Mr. Leo Since your piece seems like a position piece, or questioning piece by an organization, what organization is this, assuming you are part of this organization. I find that you have much audacity to claim some of the things you do.

You say that league members can be nationalist? or that we can let them in, I dont know where you got this from, but if one agrees with our principles and our other position pieces, being a nationalist and agreeing with them are at very odd ends. To call the league between Leftist and communist is quite a ridiculous comment, I can not find a "more" communist organization than the league, if thats truly what the fight is over, who can be more communist. As has been said the links of interest, are just that, links that people might find some interest in, we dont have alliances with these groups, nor are in agreement with everything they say.

[KC]

No mention of "a workers only policy", just a policy of allowing "the working class and its allies" to join. And the "allies" bit is, well, rather ambiguous, to say the least. After all, the SWP [USA] allows "allies" of the working class to join....and these "allies", just happen to live in Manhattan apartments.

"1. All members must be a member or the working class or class allied to it. At any time that a member becomes a part of an enemy class (i.e. the petty-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie) they shall be immediately expelled from our movement."
Source (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?13)

Still kind of muddy, but a little better.


No matter how "left" the rhetoric is, national liberation is impossibe and is an idea which always serves the local national bourgeoise.

Proletarian revolution is national liberation.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 07:12 AM
Thanks for the info, PRC-UTE. Must admit I don&#39;t know anything really about your movement so any info is most helpful.

Out of interest, how do you reconcile:

The Irish Republican Socialist Movement, of which I&#39;m a member, is not &#39;nationalist&#39;.
with the statements in your signature that it is:

preparing the basic structures for an Irish Workers&#39; Republic.
and that

support for National Liberation is Internationalism.

Any help gratefully appreciated...
Sure, comrade, I&#39;d be happy to explain our position.

The IRSP/INLA have struggled to remove the British occupation from Ireland and end partition. As Marxists, we follow in the work that Marx did to defend the Irish branch of the IWA from the imperialist attitudes of some English comrades. We can&#39;t unite the working class without first defending the most oppressed section of it. That&#39;s why the IRSP also defends immigrant workers and calls for a multi-cultural society.

We understand what James Connolly meant by the &#39;carnivals of reaction&#39; unleashed by parition. The partition of Ireland into a protestant clerical state and a catholic confessional state have divided the working class more than ever before and created the worst living conditions for working people in the British Isles. The goal of republican socialists (unlike nationalists) is to unite Protestants and Catholics together and end sectarianism by removing the British source of it. This is what we call National Liberation.

It&#39;s distinguished from nationalism first of all by its class component. The Irish bourgeoisie of the 26 counties are fine with partition - it suits em just fine at this point to keep the working class divided. The struggle for NL has fallen completely to the working class; there is not bourgeois support for it.

The republican socialist struggle for NL is also distinguished by its internationalism. The IRSM has been close to the Palestinian struggle, workers organistions in Britain and even the Cuban fight in Angola. The IRSM aided the British Angry Brigades, even releasing joint statements with them, which needless to say is un-nationalist behaviour.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Comrade&#045;[email protected] 2 2006, 06:11 PM
Decrying British imperialism is kinda redundant at this point. All of capitalism&#39;s imperialism, both foreign and domestic, will be swept away. Unless you think that having British masters is worse than having Irish masters, unless you think that British imperialism is worse than home-grown imperialism. I get the feeling that, even if you don&#39;t think that, a lot of the potential supporters of the Irish Republicans believe that (and lack the class consciousness to perceive otherwise--which is a problem), and thus the Irish Republicans feel that they need to stress this line to scoop up those less conscious members (which, is degrading one&#39;s theory (reformism) in order to attract support worth it?
This is a lot of idealist nonsense, totally abstract and divorced from reality.

If your family and neighbours are attacked by loyalists who&#39;ve been armed and trained by the British Army Force Research Unit, you&#39;d not say it&#39;s &#39;redundant&#39; - to say nothing of the fact that sweeping away oppression takes more than talk.

If you&#39;re discriminated against and can&#39;t get a home cos you come from a catholic area, you wouldn&#39;t treat it like a non-issue.

If you can&#39;t unite with the most oppressed workers, you can&#39;t unite the working class, period.

By the way, we did far more than just &#39;decrying&#39; British terrorism in Ireland. ;)

[hoopla]

I do not oppress Irish people :x

:lol:

I&#39;m descriminated against too. Do you want to join my political cause?

[PRC-UTE]

No matter how "left" the rhetoric is, national liberation is impossibe and is an idea which always serves the local national bourgeoise.

Please tell me which bourgeoisie the IRSM are aiding. The Canadian one? :rolleyes: Cos the Irish bourgeoisie based in the south tried harder to crush the irps than the Brits did. Last I checked, the INLA had fought the gardai (irish police) quite a few times and we never received support from bourgeois sources.



IRSP might have a left-er rhetoric than the Kurds in Iraq, but I can pretty easilily compare them to Kurds in Turkey.

I don’t know a lot about the Kurdish situation, tell me are the Kurds fighting to remove a border placed there by an imperialist neighbour and unite across sectarian lines? Otherwise it&#39;s hard to understand how the CIA-backed Kurdish seperatists have much to do with the Irish situation.



I&#39;m sorry but support for national liberation is nationalism, and it has nothing to do with internationalism. National liberation is impossible,

Well the example of the IRSM contradicts what you said about internationalism. We’ve been in practice (not just rhetoric) more internationalist than most left groupings. And National Liberation is impossible- without socialism, which is why the RSM exists as a movement distinct from the RM.

[hoopla]

Will you create a (non-socialist) state by liberating Ireland?

Do you not think that it is possible that the irish bourgeoisie were wrong? Or looking after their immediate interests?

:)

[Leo]

Proletarian revolution is national liberation.

This is an outrageous claim. Proletarian revolution is the abolition of nationalism (which is, as I persume that you know, a bourgeois concept used to divide the workers and make them serve the natinal bourgeois instead of fighting for their own demands), and fraternization across borders. Working class in a specific location can liberate itself but a nation, which consists of the bourgeois and workers can&#39;t be liberated as a whole. So proletarian revolution is not national liberation, its workers liberation, and will probably be abolition of nations as well, at least in the sense we understand them today, as the concept of nations themselves are very intensely connected to nationalism.


Mr. Leo Since your piece seems like a position piece, or questioning piece by an organization, what organization is this, assuming you are part of this organization. I find that you have much audacity to claim some of the things you do.

I am from the EKS (Internationalist Communist Left), a left communist organization in Turkey and we are quite a new organization so our website is not explanatory and is in Turkish. You can follow the link in my signature to see what it&#39;s like but even for Turkish speakers I have to admit that there is not much to see. We have an introduction piece which is hosted in the ICC (International Communist Current) site, among with out Mayday leaflet, and I posted two leaflets on Lebanon in RevLeft:

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/295_eks_basicpositions

http://en.internationalism.org/node/1772

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54793

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55231


You say that league members can be nationalist? or that we can let them in, I dont know where you got this from, but if one agrees with our principles and our other position pieces, being a nationalist and agreeing with them are at very odd ends.


Finally, the CL is really tolerant to its members beliefs, it accepts members from Maoist, Trotskyist or official Communist party traditions and respects the beliefs of those members, no matter how far away from a class base their perspective is, regardless of their support for reactionary nationalists who divide the working class into specific groups etc.

I suppose you were talking about here and with that phrase I mean people from the league, supporting Hizbullah, reationary nationalists, so I didn&#39;t mean that an american redneck for example can be a member.


To call the league between Leftist and communist is quite a ridiculous comment, I can not find a "more" communist organization than the league, if thats truly what the fight is over, who can be more communist.

Well this is what I call audacity :lol: I (personally) think almost every left communist organization is more communist than the CL, as I draw the line on war between supporting the working class and supporting workers being slaughtered by/for their national bourgeoise and CL has members on both sides of the line. Anyways, I tried to explain this position in detail in he open letter.

Oh, and PRC-UTE, please split the thread if you want to debate on IRSM with me.

[Devrim]

Lone Red asks:
Originally posted by LoneRed+--> (LoneRed)Mr. Leo Since your piece seems like a position piece, or questioning piece by an organization, what organization is this, assuming you are part of this organization.[/b]

The letter is singed by Leo not by the EKS. Is does not say for the EKS. It is an open letter from him to the members of the communist league. That said it does seem to have aroused some controversy.

We believe that communist organisations are those which have consistently taken a clear line on capitalist war. I think that the Communist League fails to do that. I think that this dialogue shows it very clearly:

[i]Originally posted by Alf+--> (Alf)To go back to Communist League and the question of &#39;petty bourgeois&#39; members. CL claims that his group has excised all forms of petty bourgeois practice and ideology from its ranks. But on one rather important issue at least, they are the epitome of petty bourgeois democratism where all opinions are equally valid. CL tells us that it&#39;s Khayembii&#39;s "opinion" that revolutionaries should support the Iraqi "resistance". This is not, apparently, the position of the CL as a group, but still, on a question as vital as whether you advocate participation in an imperialist war alongside organisations which have the vocation of massacring the Iraqi workers - that&#39;s an acceptable "opinion" for a militant of this organisation.[/b]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague

Originally posted by Alf+Aug 11 2006, 01:54 PM--> (Alf &#064; Aug 11 2006, 01:54 PM) To go back to Communist League and the question of &#39;petty bourgeois&#39; members. CL claims that his group has excised all forms of petty bourgeois practice and ideology from its ranks. But on one rather important issue at least, they are the epitome of petty bourgeois democratism where all opinions are equally valid.
Only someone from one of the exploiting classes believes their opinion is more important than someone else&#39;s, or that only their opinion should be heard. Proletarian democracy respects the opinions of all our brothers and sisters, even when they are wrong.[/b]
So for the Communist League supporting nationalist movements such as the Iraqi resistance is defendable under the slogan of workers&#39; democracy. This is indeed a very poor argument. Lots of workers are racists, but I am sure that the Communist League wouldn&#39;t allow racists to be members under the slogan of &#39; respect the opinions of all our brothers and sisters, even when they are wrong&#39;. Political organisations are founded on a political basis. One of the basic programmatic stances of our organisation is &#39;The rejection of all forms of nationalism, and the defence of internationalism&#39;.

EKS
3)The rejection of all forms of nationalism, and the defence of internationalism
Nationalism is a basic slogan used by the bourgeoisie to organize the working class in capitalist interests. The claim that independent from their class position, every member of a nation is on the same boat only serves to destroy the revolutionary potential of the working class by joining two antagonistic classes on an ideological level. Starting form this premise, it comes to say that every person has to work for ‘his or her’ own nation, own capitalist class, and the struggle for their own class interests would result in the sinking of the boat. Unlike the whole lefts claim’s in the case of both Turkish and Kurdish nationalisms, they have no different characteristics.
The basic reality denied by people who talk about national liberation struggles against imperialism is that the characteristic of the struggle of the working class liberation is above nations. The liberation of the working class can only be achieved by raising the flag of class struggle against every kind of national liberation struggle, demagogy, and imperialist war. Today people who talk about a ‘national front’ against imperialists, and national independence are in a race with liberals, who they think that they oppose, to deny class contradictions. Kurdish nationalism, the so called opponent of Turkish nationalism, which it also feeds upon, realizes the complete separation of the working class by performing the same role as Turkish nationalism for the workers in its own region.

I think that this is very clear. Our organisation is against both Turkish, and Kurdish nationalism. I don&#39;t think that the Communist League has such a clear position on internationalism, and the result of this is that members have made such a wide varity of responses to the wars in Iraq, and Lebanon from taking a class position to arguing for support for the resistance. Imperialist war is not an abstract question. I think that it is of upmost importance that revolutionaries are able to define their position clearly. The Communist League fails to do this.

The IRSP argue that support for national liberation is internationalism. Well let&#39;s let them speak for themselves (my emphasis)
[email protected]
The gaining of collective economic control of the nation&#39;s resources by the nation as a whole and the eradication of any control or influence exercised by foreign capitalists over any aspect of the Irish economy.
I think that that seems quite clear.

Then of course there is the fact that they are linked to the INLA, which is merely a bunch of murdering nationalist gangsters. Wiki has this to say about them
Wiki
So bad was the reputation of the INLA for feuding and criminality during this time that INLA slogans in republican areas were frequently defaced to read "I Never Leave Anything" and IRSP changed to "I Rob Shops and Post offices"

We could go on to ask how cutting of dentist&#39;s fingers leads the way to socialism, or indeed how bombing pubs does.

But as Leo says, maybe you should start a different thread for that.

Devrim

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Well, you&#39;ll have to ask that to other Marxist-Leninists who don&#39;t like Castro and Cuba.

Yeah, but they&#39;re not calling us "Castroites", you are.. so you should be able to explain how we as "Castroites" differ from "Marxist-Leninists"... or do you use terms and labels that you can&#39;t define?


No mention of "a workers only policy", just a policy of allowing "the working class and its allies" to join. And the "allies" bit is, well, rather ambiguous, to say the least. After all, the SWP [USA] allows "allies" of the working class to join....and these "allies", just happen to live in Manhattan apartments.

Let&#39;s see, the program clearly prohibits any capitalists or petty-bourgeoisie and their agents from membership.. so who is left?

Our first rule is "All members must be a member or the working class or class allied to it. At any time that a member becomes a part of an enemy class (i.e. the petty-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie) they shall be immediately expelled from our movement."

Classes allied to it [the proletariat] include poor farmers and poor peasants.. not the petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie.. and that&#39;s made pretty clear.

[The Grey Blur]

Emancipation of the working class will happen on a nation-by-nation basis so most of your post is crap
The IRSP put &#39;national liberation&#39; ahead of Socialism

If you can find a history on their members you&#39;ll find they just let in anyone willing to fight the British Army without any sort of theoretical schooling. That&#39;s why they ended up cutting people&#39;s fingers off and murdering each other over drugs.

They also have a backwards stance on drugs and social problems

[The Grey Blur]

The IRSP/INLA have struggled to remove the British occupation from Ireland
While true Socialists struggle to remove the beurgeois from Ireland, not just the British section of it.


and end partition
On what basis? When workers come to power north and south a United Ireland will be created and until then anti-partitionism is Nationalism.


As Marxists, we follow in the work that Marx did to defend the Irish branch of the IWA from the imperialist attitudes of some English comrades
Fine, now you are being challenged by fellow Irish Marxists on your stance, I hope you can handle that.


We can&#39;t unite the working class without first defending the most oppressed section of it
:lol: So Protestant workers are not oppressed? I can&#39;t believe the IRSP are trying to play the &#39;labour aristocracy&#39; angle in the 21st century.


That&#39;s why the IRSP also defends immigrant workers
In 2005 the Socialist Party and in particular Joe Higgins TD and Cllr. Mick Murphy were instrumental in exposing the exploitation of immigrant Turkish construction workers working for the Turkish multinational GAMA on Irish state projects. Workers were being paid as little as 3 euros an hour (less than half the minimum wage in Ireland) while being forced to work up to 80 hours per week. The Socialist Party&#39;s intervention led to the first major strike by immigrant workers in Ireland. The Party then discovered millions of euro hidden in Dutch bank accounts in the workers names. The strike ended in complete victory with the workers winning tens of thousand of euros each in unpaid wages and overtime. It proved to be a major coup for the party with huge press coverage over months, while embarrassing the official trade union movement, SIPTU, of which the GAMA workers were members.


The goal of republican socialists (unlike nationalists) is to unite Protestants and Catholics together and end sectarianism by removing the British source of it
While you prefix your movement with the word &#39;Irish&#39; and take pride in the actions of the INLA you will never have any support amongst Protestant workers. Sad but true.


The Irish bourgeoisie of the 26 counties are fine with partition - it suits em just fine at this point to keep the working class divided
Hmm...yet Sinn Féin, another anti-partition party, recieve millions from this same beurgeois...


The struggle for NL has fallen completely to the working class; there is not bourgeois support for it.
Then what the hell do you call Sinn Féin&#33;? The leadership at least has clearly opted for a buergeois agenda of cozying up to domestic and international beurgeois in their national ideals.

It is clear that the calls for &#39;National Liberation&#39; of Ireland from &#39;Socialists&#39; are misguided. Only when wokring-class liberation has been achieved on both sides of the border can Ireland be united.

[Alf]

I agree with Devrim’s post in particular. The eclectic ‘democratism’ of the CL is rather strange in an organisation which seems to want to present itself as the epitome of hard “Leninism”. However, from what I can see, the CL’s “openness” to nationalist gangsters is rooted in their basic positions, not just in the fact that they tolerate all sorts of disparate opinions.

It’s true that the Communist League hasn’t directly joined in with the ‘we are all Hizbollah’ chorus, but given the fact that Hizbollah are very plainly a gang of anti-Semitic religious fundamentalists, opposing them (which in any case they do in a very ambiguous way, as I tried to show in the thread about the Lebanon war which Devrim refers to) doesn’t necessarily mean that the CL is making a break with leftism or is half way to communism. Their underlying position on ‘anti-colonial struggles’ makes it perfectly possible for them to ally with capitalist movements or even states which they do consider ‘anti-imperialist’. This is from their basic principles:

“The only instances when we communists can find ourselves allying with such semicolonial states is when they were the product of a legitimate popular democratic movement that had consciously chosen to come into conflict with the imperialist Great Powers and had deposed its colonial viceroys or semicolonial compradors. Analogous to this, communists also ally themselves with states seeking to break the chains that bind them to the imperialist division of labor and hierarchy. In such instances, our support is conditional and meant to intersect those proletarians that seek to defend the political, economic and social gains they have made”.

The fact that they are allied with various groups (the ‘International Working People’s Association’ and so on) who openly consider Cuba to be a ‘socialist state’, or who support the Irish nationalist movement, indicates that this entanglement with nationalism is not merely hypothetical.

I also think it’s a mistake to restrict a communist critique of the Worker Communist Parties to their organisational practice or their leadership cult. More important is that they have a very definite, popular frontist programme for the management of capitalism in Iraq or Iran, disguised under the slogan of the ‘democratic revolution’.

This mentality is also displayed by the Communist League in the ridiculous point by point programme of transitional demands for completing the democratic revolution in the USA, which they call their ‘Action Platform’ (http://www.communistleague.org/page.php?7). Even if there is absolutely no prospect of this programme being carried out – and they are more or less aware of this – putting it forward not only displays their leftist attitude to the development of class consciousness (‘tricking’ the workers into revolution by raising impossible demands is classic Trotskyism) - it also creates a profound mystification by presenting ‘radical democracy’ as a transition to the dictatorship of the proletariat, when in fact it is the last rampart against it.

In saying this I am not saying we should refuse to engage with people in or around the CL. I think Leo’s effort to draw them out and clarify where they stand is to be welcomed (even if the form of the &#39;Open Letter&#39; was a bit unclear - I also thought that it was letter from the EKS as a group until Devrim cleared this up)._But unless I am very much mistaken, CL as such remains firmly in the leftist camp - i.e. in the extreme left of capitalism’s political apparatus.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 3 2006, 04:29 PM
While true Socialists struggle to remove the beurgeois from Ireland, not just the British section of it.

The IRSP/INLA are bitter enemies of the Irish bourgeoisie - much more so than the rest of the left. Our members are still regularly harrassed by the gardai.



As Marxists, we follow in the work that Marx did to defend the Irish branch of the IWA from the imperialist attitudes of some English comrades
Fine, now you are being challenged by fellow Irish Marxists on your stance, I hope you can handle that.

By whom? You? :lol:

You&#39;re a petite bourgeois and I don&#39;t care what you say.



We can&#39;t unite the working class without first defending the most oppressed section of it
:lol: So Protestant workers are not oppressed? I can&#39;t believe the IRSP are trying to play the &#39;labour aristocracy&#39; angle in the 21st century.

What are you talking about?

I said the most oppressed section of the working class (meaning that there&#39;s another, relatively privelaged section of the w/c...).

You&#39;re really grasping for straws here.



That&#39;s why the IRSP also defends immigrant workers
In 2005 the Socialist Party and...

Yeah, the IRSP have been active on picket lines and in defence of immigrants as well.



The goal of republican socialists (unlike nationalists) is to unite Protestants and Catholics together and end sectarianism by removing the British source of it
While you prefix your movement with the word &#39;Irish&#39; and take pride in the actions of the INLA you will never have any support amongst Protestant workers. Sad but true.

We do have support from some protestant workers and protestant members.



The Irish bourgeoisie of the 26 counties are fine with partition - it suits em just fine at this point to keep the working class divided
Hmm...yet Sinn Féin, another anti-partition party, recieve millions from this same beurgeois...

Sinn Fein, in their own words, have accepted partition.



The struggle for NL has fallen completely to the working class; there is not bourgeois support for it.
Then what the hell do you call Sinn Féin&#33;? The leadership at least has clearly opted for a buergeois agenda of cozying up to domestic and international beurgeois in their national ideals.

It is clear that the calls for &#39;National Liberation&#39; of Ireland from &#39;Socialists&#39; are misguided. Only when wokring-class liberation has been achieved on both sides of the border can Ireland be united.

This is unmarxist and would delay workers&#39; liberation forever. As James Connolly demonstrated, NL without socialism is meaningless, and socialism without NL is impossible.


If you can find a history on their members you&#39;ll find they just let in anyone willing to fight the British Army without any sort of theoretical schooling. That&#39;s why they ended up cutting people&#39;s fingers off and murdering each other over drugs.

Rubbish - the INLA purged criminal elements from its ranks, then those crminals banded together to attack the INLA leadership who attempted to avoid bloodshed at all costs. IRSM leaders were murdered while approaching the IPLO to negotiate a truce.

Devrim -

Des O&#39;Hare wasn&#39;t a member of the INLA when he chopped the fingers off the dentist.

As far as the gangster part, I invite you to prove it. No one else has offered any evidence for that, and no one while being a member of the IRSP / INLA has ever been prosecuted for drugs offences.

[LoneRed]

I will write something on your piece Leo, a little later today, and I would appreciate some answers to my previous post, thank you

[The Grey Blur]

The IRSP/INLA are bitter enemies of the Irish bourgeoisie - much more so than the rest of the left
Well I think the Left in general doesn&#39;t really pose any danger to the beurgeoisie at the moment and wont until we have mass support but I&#39;m sure you like to think of yourselves as much more &#39;hardcore&#39; than the rest of us.



You&#39;re a petite bourgeois and I don&#39;t care what you say.
:lol:

Well you&#39;re an Irp and I don&#39;t care what you say


What are you talking about?
Well you&#39;re trying to get people to buy into the myth that there is a Protestant &#39;labour aristocracy&#39;, an outdated conception which even Connolly fought in his day.


You&#39;re really grasping for straws here.
Taking a sectarian stance to justify your nationalism is hardly a straw and I&#39;ve got plenty more critiscisms of the IRSP, I just want to make sure the members of this board get a balanced viewpoint of the IRSP and realise there are Socialist alternatives (http://www.socialistparty.net/) in Ireland.


We do have support from some protestant workers and protestant members.
And you know yourselves that that &#39;support&#39; is nothing compared to the 99% of Protestants who would be hostile to your hodge-podge of Nationalism and Socialism


Sinn Fein, in their own words, have accepted partition.
Sinn Féin are practically pissing their pants in anticapation of the Capitalist United Ireland


This is unmarxist and would delay workers&#39; liberation forever. As James Connolly demonstrated, NL without socialism is meaningless, and socialism without NL is impossible.
You can interperet Connolly in your own way, I believe he would prefer see a United Working-Class than a United Ireland


Rubbish - the INLA purged criminal elements from its ranks, then those crminals banded together to attack the INLA leadership who attempted to avoid bloodshed at all costs. IRSM leaders were murdered while approaching the IPLO to negotiate a truce.
I can get quotes from one of your comrades on another board admitting the INLA allowed criminal elements within it&#39;s ranks but that it was &#39;neccessary&#39;.

The INLA/IRSP self-destructed


Des O&#39;Hare wasn&#39;t a member of the INLA when he chopped the fingers off the dentist.
Well he&#39;s a member now


As far as the gangster part
I never said anything about gangsters...guilty conscience?

[Leo]

First of all, can an admin please split the thread on IRSP/INLA.


Originally posted by Companero+--> (Companero)Yeah, but they&#39;re not calling us "Castroites", you are.. so you should be able to explain how we as "Castroites" differ from "Marxist-Leninists"... or do you use terms and labels that you can&#39;t define?[/b]

Castroite, supporter of Fidel Castro and the current regime in Cuba. It differs from Trotskyists, Maoists, Hoxhaists who consider themselves genuine Marxist-Leninists.


Originally posted by Alf+--> (Alf) It’s true that the Communist League hasn’t directly joined in with the ‘we are all Hizbollah’ chorus, but given the fact that Hizbollah are very plainly a gang of anti-Semitic religious fundamentalists, opposing them (which in any case they do in a very ambiguous way, as I tried to show in the thread about the Lebanon war which Devrim refers to) doesn’t necessarily mean that the CL is making a break with leftism or is half way to communism.[/b]

I will have to admit that I tried to be as positive and assumed the best while writing this letter as possible. I hope that replies the letter will get from CL members will show how helpful this letter has been to clarify CL&#39;s position, and if the letter was a mistake or not.


[email protected]
I think Leo’s effort to draw them out and clarify where they stand is to be welcomed (even if the form of the &#39;Open Letter&#39; was a bit unclear - I also thought that it was letter from the EKS as a group until Devrim cleared this up)

Thanks Alf, that was why I wrote the open letter. I signed it myself and hoped it would be clear that this letter was written only on my behalf, but to correct any misunderstanding, this open letter to the members of the CL was not written by the EKS, only by myself. Although I do admit that Devrim corrected my grammer errors :blush:


LoneRed
I will write something on your piece Leo, a little later today, and I would appreciate some answers to my previous post, thank you

Ah, did I miss some of your points? Sorry about that. Okay I&#39;ll check my previous reply to your post...

*Checks his previous reply*

Ok, here it is, maybe you missed it? If not what is it that I haven&#39;t replies?

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292157541 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55244&view=findpost&p=1292157541)

[LoneRed]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 3 2006, 09:35 PM
You&#39;re a petite bourgeois and I don&#39;t care what you say.




Well you&#39;re an Irp and I don&#39;t care what you say
and people wonder why the left is so disintegrated :huh:

[LoneRed]

Alf, who led you astray?

I would like to comment on the argument that you made about our action Platform. I have talked to Miles as well as other members of the CL, and that was written as a kind of a draft to further the progress of the beginning of a workers state. We just didnt want to leave it out, and we knew people would start talking about it. It basically is our demands currently, in this capitalist world. All the members of the CL know that it is unlikely to be achieved, so it is just that a blueprint. We dont focus on it like we do our long term goal... communism. We advocate a workers Republic, or to be more proper, A Workers State, The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, so the workers can adequately defend themselves against the capitalist backlash, and when that threat is near gone, we believe due to the nature of this worker state, that communism will naturally follow.


Miles correct me if im wrong

[LoneRed]

I (personally) think almost every left communist organization is more communist than the CL, as I draw the line on war between supporting the working class and supporting workers being slaughtered by/for their national bourgeoise and CL has members on both sides of the line. Anyways, I tried to explain this position in detail in he open letter.



Sorry, I see your responses now. Firstly I must ask what members support workers being slaughtered for their national bourgeoisie? So we can rule out the members in the states, since i know them personally, we can also rule out the CL of Uganda, I don&#39;t see where you get this. We are the ones against the "we are all hezbollah" line, and first and foremost support the working class defending themselves against capitalist agents, please add some more info so I know what you are talking about, what instance.

if you are talking about the links, I believe that has already been covered thoroughly but i will talk about it if you are so inclined.

[Leo]

Sorry, I see your responses now. Firstly I must ask what members support workers being slaughtered for their national bourgeoisie? So we can rule out the members in the states, since i know them personally, we can also rule out the CL of Uganda, I don&#39;t see where you get this. We are the ones against the "we are all hezbollah" line, and first and foremost support the working class defending themselves against capitalist agents, please add some more info so I know what you are talking about, what instance.

The reason I decided to write this open letter to CL members was exactly because CL appeared to be against Hizbullah. However, Devrim explained my concerns clearly in this post:


Originally posted by Devrim+--> (Devrim) We believe that communist organisations are those which have consistently taken a clear line on capitalist war. I think that the Communist League fails to do that. I think that this dialogue shows it very clearly:


[i]Originally posted by Alf+--> (Alf) To go back to Communist League and the question of &#39;petty bourgeois&#39; members. CL claims that his group has excised all forms of petty bourgeois practice and ideology from its ranks. But on one rather important issue at least, they are the epitome of petty bourgeois democratism where all opinions are equally valid. CL tells us that it&#39;s Khayembii&#39;s "opinion" that revolutionaries should support the Iraqi "resistance". This is not, apparently, the position of the CL as a group, but still, on a question as vital as whether you advocate participation in an imperialist war alongside organisations which have the vocation of massacring the Iraqi workers - that&#39;s an acceptable "opinion" for a militant of this organisation.
[/b]


Originally posted by Miles

Alf @ Aug 11 [email protected] 01:54 PM
To go back to Communist League and the question of &#39;petty bourgeois&#39; members. CL claims that his group has excised all forms of petty bourgeois practice and ideology from its ranks. But on one rather important issue at least, they are the epitome of petty bourgeois democratism where all opinions are equally valid.

Only someone from one of the exploiting classes believes their opinion is more important than someone else&#39;s, or that only their opinion should be heard. Proletarian democracy respects the opinions of all our brothers and sisters, even when they are wrong.

So for the Communist League supporting nationalist movements such as the Iraqi resistance is defendable under the slogan of workers&#39; democracy. This is indeed a very poor argument. Lots of workers are racists, but I am sure that the Communist League wouldn&#39;t allow racists to be members under the slogan of &#39; respect the opinions of all our brothers and sisters, even when they are wrong&#39;. Political organisations are founded on a political basis. One of the basic programmatic stances of our organisation is &#39;The rejection of all forms of nationalism, and the defence of internationalism&#39;.


EKS
3)The rejection of all forms of nationalism, and the defence of internationalism
Nationalism is a basic slogan used by the bourgeoisie to organize the working class in capitalist interests. The claim that independent from their class position, every member of a nation is on the same boat only serves to destroy the revolutionary potential of the working class by joining two antagonistic classes on an ideological level. Starting form this premise, it comes to say that every person has to work for ‘his or her’ own nation, own capitalist class, and the struggle for their own class interests would result in the sinking of the boat. Unlike the whole lefts claim’s in the case of both Turkish and Kurdish nationalisms, they have no different characteristics.
The basic reality denied by people who talk about national liberation struggles against imperialism is that the characteristic of the struggle of the working class liberation is above nations. The liberation of the working class can only be achieved by raising the flag of class struggle against every kind of national liberation struggle, demagogy, and imperialist war. Today people who talk about a ‘national front’ against imperialists, and national independence are in a race with liberals, who they think that they oppose, to deny class contradictions. Kurdish nationalism, the so called opponent of Turkish nationalism, which it also feeds upon, realizes the complete separation of the working class by performing the same role as Turkish nationalism for the workers in its own region.

I think that this is very clear. Our organisation is against both Turkish, and Kurdish nationalism. I don&#39;t think that the Communist League has such a clear position on internationalism, and the result of this is that members have made such a wide varity of responses to the wars in Iraq, and Lebanon from taking a class position to arguing for support for the resistance. Imperialist war is not an abstract question. I think that it is of upmost importance that revolutionaries are able to define their position clearly. The Communist League fails to do this.[/b]

Now, of course, militants of an organization can disagree, they are different people, it is natural to disagree on occasions but there has to be agreement in basic points; most importantly complete rejection of nationalism and support for internationalism, the working class and communism... For example if a militant of a Communist organization supports Hizbullah and therefore Lebanese workers losing the ability to act as a class for fighting and dying for their national flag, this is a fundmental difference. A communist organization looks for militants who will work for communism, when the militant defends Hizbullah, he is not working for communism anymore and therefore he has no place in a communist organization. However if the organization is a leftist (left capitalist) one, it doesn&#39;t matter what the member believes in, because his main purpose is to raise the membership number for various reasons. The same thing goes for alliences. A communist organization makes an allience and even forms relationship with another organization if they agree on fundmental points, in other words if the organization that is being contacted is really communist. As for leftist organizations, if they are trying to have a big front (which they usually do when they can afford it), they can ally themselves practically with anyone i.e RESPECT Coalition in England which was formed with the holly marriage of the Islamacists, Cliffites and George Galloway(&#33;)

[Leo]

if you are talking about the links, I believe that has already been covered thoroughly but i will talk about it if you are so inclined.

Eh, lets deal with the big points first. We can always come back to the links.

[LoneRed]

so your beef is that we dont have a clear position on the capitalist wars?

check this out

http://www.communistleague.org/page.php?4

as well check out some issues of WPA or WR, many articles deal with the capitalist wars, and the inadequacy of the regime

and our latest issue of the Worker

http://www.communistleague.org/pdf/tw/tw20060826.pdf

Or the article entitled "Peace Fraud" in this issue of WPA

http://www.communistleague.org/pdf/wpa/wpa200609.pdf

I do recognize that we say we ally with workers to defend workers interests, and that this could be ambiguous, but to clarify, we don&#39;t just support any workers ideas. We support the workers themselves, To the emancipation of the working class, this doesnt mean we support the KKK if there are working class members, this means we fight in the interests of the workers, the interests being, their own liberation

And i dont know if you&#39;ve seen the leagues 7th bulletin
http://www.communistleague.org/page.php?74

If you could write out the actual question you have, if i have not answered it, i could more adequately address it, thank you

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Castroite, supporter of Fidel Castro and the current regime in Cuba. It differs from Trotskyists, Maoists, Hoxhaists who consider themselves genuine Marxist-Leninists.

So Tito was a "Castroite".. cuz I mean it could be said that he supported socialist Cuba.

But are people who supported Tito "Titoites"? If so, would that make them "Titoite-Castroites"? :lol:

I&#39;m just trying to point out how ridiculous these labels are, especially when you can&#39;t even define them.

The FPM is a communist organization. That label is sufficient.

[Leo]

Originally posted by LoneRed+--> (LoneRed)I do recognize that we say we ally with workers to defend workers interests, and that this could be ambiguous, but to clarify, we don&#39;t just support any workers ideas. We support the workers themselves, To the emancipation of the working class, this doesnt mean we support the KKK if there are working class members, this means we fight in the interests of the workers, the interests being, their own liberation[/b]

Well, supporting workers, especially when they are fighting for their interests and fighting for their liberation is one thing, being allies of other organizations in order to create a front is another.

I will check out the links you gave me, thaks for posting them.

Yet, despite the position CL officially took on the war in middle east, there are members who support the war. A communist organization can&#39;t have disagreements of the war issue, becase this is an issue that is directly related to communism.


CdL
So Tito was a "Castroite".. cuz I mean it could be said that he supported socialist Cuba.

Uh, if you didn&#39;t know he had his own thing going on in Yugoslavia :P

The support he gave to Cuba was a diplomatic one.


But are people who supported Tito "Titoites"?

The proper word is Titoists I believe.


If so, would that make them "Titoite-Castroites"?

Nah, it would make them either Khruschevites or Titoists :lol:


I&#39;m just trying to point out how ridiculous these labels are, especially when you can&#39;t even define them.

I can&#39;t see what your problem with being called a Castroite is. (Does it sound too much like a Cliffite :lol: ) You had that Nelson Mandela quote in your sig, FPM had that Cuba Truth Project etc. It was the first impression anyone would get.

[LoneRed]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 4 2006, 07:55 AM
there are members who support the war. A communist organization can&#39;t have disagreements of the war issue, becase this is an issue that is directly related to communism
Members in the League? care to tell us who these people are, This is news to me, everyone in the league ive been into contact with, is strictly against the imperialist wars, started by the US and Israel

[Leo]

Members in the League? care to tell us who these people are, This is news to me, everyone in the league ive been into contact with, is strictly against the imperialist wars, started by the US and Israel

Well, you have members who support Hizbullah and the Iraqi ressistance right? That&#39;s what I was talking about. In Devrim&#39;s post, it is mentioned and I remember seeing a member start a thread on this on the League&#39;s web forum.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 4 2006, 03:44 AM
Well, you have members who support Hizbullah and the Iraqi ressistance right? That&#39;s what I was talking about. In Devrim&#39;s post, it is mentioned and I remember seeing a member start a thread on this on the League&#39;s web forum.
The person who started a thread on the League&#39;s discussion board was a sympathizer, not a member.

Miles

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I can&#39;t see what your problem with being called a Castroite is. (Does it sound too much like a Cliffite ) You had that Nelson Mandela quote in your sig, FPM had that Cuba Truth Project etc. It was the first impression anyone would get.

I don&#39;t mind it, it&#39;s just a joke.. People throw around these meaningless labels that they themselves can&#39;t define..

What does me as a person having a quote from Nelson Mandela have to do with the organization I belong to being "Castroite"?

You still haven&#39;t explained exactly what a "Castroite" is... outside of "one who supports Cuba".. What if one supports Cuba and DPRK? What does that make them? How bout if they support Cuba, but didn&#39;t support the USSR? How about if they supported Cuba, the USSR and China?

[Leo]

What does me as a person having a quote from Nelson Mandela have to do with the organization I belong to being "Castroite"?

Well, it is natural to assume that people are in an organization that shares their views.


You still haven&#39;t explained exactly what a "Castroite" is... outside of "one who supports Cuba"

Well, lets say someone who supports Castro and defends and promotes the regime in Cuba, how would that work out?


What if one supports Cuba and DPRK? What does that make them?

Tankie?


How bout if they support Cuba, but didn&#39;t support the USSR?

Some sort of a Trot?


How about if they supported Cuba, the USSR and China?

Cliffite :P or maybe a careerist... Wait they are the same thing&#33;

http://www.boognish.com/ween_archive/weirdie/emoticons/lion.gif

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

who the fuck is Myasnikov?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

who the fuck is Myasnikov?

Gavril Myasnikov was the leader of the "Workers&#39; Group" in the CPSU.

[LoneRed]

Ask Miles about Myasnikov

[Leo]

Is the central commitee of the CL going to reply?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 19 2006, 10:21 AM
Is the central commitee of the CL going to reply?
In due course. We have a lot of things we&#39;re dealing with, and your letter is just one of them. Don&#39;t worry, your letter and the reply will be in the next issue of Workers&#39; Republic as well.

Miles

[Leo]

Originally posted by Miles
your letter and the reply will be in the next issue of Workers&#39; Republic as well.

Oh, that&#39;s nice :)

You can, of course, take as much time as you want.

[Lenin's Law]

I am interested in the CL organization and will also be looking forward to their response.

[LoneRed]

I recomend our current issue of The Worker (communist) as well

WR should be coming out soon

http://www.communistleague.org/page?59

League Members and the CC has been really busy and its been quite hectic, sorry for the time delays, but We havent forgotten about you all

[AlwaysAnarchy]

lol

take all the time indeed. I am not interested in resurrecting the failed experiments of the past...let&#39;s instead work to the future and building new ways of revolution and bashing up the capitalist shit not via some authoritiarian dictatorship but just like establishing anarchism and like fucking up the state immediately&#33;

[LoneRed]

you either do not understand the meaning of the Dictatorship of The proletariat, or just ignore its implications