Proletariat during war [Archive]

RGacky3

14th February 2007, 18:12

There was an article on Anarchismo.net a while ago about what Anarchists should do during a coup, and I think an outside invasion is a similar thing. The best thing to do is to neither support the State or the invading force and fight a grass roots war against both a revolution.

A war is a perfect oportunity for a revolution, the State is weakend by war, the Capitalist class relies on the working class more than ever, and the other side, the Invaders are in a very very volitile situation.

I'll take Iraq (I don't consider the Jihad movment at all positive, but I'll use it as an example), during the US invasion of Iraq, the Jihad movement came in and opposed BOTH the US and the Baath government, and because of their wide spread support they did very well. The russian revolution is another example. Settling for the 'lesser evil' is loosing a great opportunity for change.

The example given in WWII, does'nt quite workout, if the Russian people did'nt support Stalin, and neither Hitler and instead waged a Guerilla (Partisan) war against both, things could have turned out much better, I think they were just as bad off under Stalin than they would have been under Hitler, but they could have resisted both.

gilhyle

14th February 2007, 18:41

Itw quite clear in Lenin's approach that a war between an imperialist power and an imperialised country is an exception to the method of defeating your own ruling class - that position should not be taken in an imperialised country subject to invasion.

It is also well established in how Trotsky applied Lenin's approach that defence of a workers state was also an exception.

Eleutherios

17th February 2007, 09:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 06:41 pm
Itw quite clear in Lenin's approach that a war between an imperialist power and an imperialised country is an exception to the method of defeating your own ruling class - that position should not be taken in an imperialised country subject to invasion.
You make a good point (although I agree with RGacky3 for the most part and am definitely not a Leninist). I think it is acceptable for working class movements to ally with other groups against an invading imperialist power in certain extenuating circumstances (China or France circa 1940 for instance).

But once the imperialists are subdued, of course, the revolution must continue. Neither the imperialist bourgeois, nor the native bourgeois must be tolerated, but occasionally we may find ourselves forced to prioritize our struggle against the former before concentrating on the latter.

Lamanov

17th February 2007, 17:51

With no exception, national war must be turned into class war.

How? Depends on the situation. With recruit military proletariat has the guns and may use them easily (like Paris Commune, German Revolution). With professional army proletariat is confined to production with increased coercion, and must use sit in strikes and occupations (like WW2 Italy).

The underdog-support anti-imperialist doctrine today bring us to supporting reactionary groups such as Iraqui islamists or Hezbolaah, and takes us away from the real struggle. Support for national liberation only prolongs the need for imperialist war machine, and helps in reproduction of conditions under which proletariat stands behind "their" national interests, "their own" reactionary government or movement.

gilhyle

19th February 2007, 23:34

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 17, 2007 05:51 pm
Support for national liberation only prolongs the need for imperialist war machine, and helps in reproduction of conditions under which proletariat stands behind "their" national interests, "their own" reactionary government or movement.
You gotta be joking.

PRC-UTE

19th February 2007, 23:39

Originally posted by gilhyle+February 19, 2007 11:34 pm--> (gilhyle @ February 19, 2007 11:34 pm)
DJ-[email protected] 17, 2007 05:51 pm
Support for national liberation only prolongs the need for imperialist war machine, and helps in reproduction of conditions under which proletariat stands behind "their" national interests, "their own" reactionary government or movement.
You gotta be joking. [/b]
I'm afraid he's not.

Gillhyle laid it out correctly.

Alf

20th February 2007, 10:30

I agree completely with DJ-TC. As Rosa Luxemburg pointed out during the first world war, the call for national independence is just a mask for imperialist rivalries. 'National liberation' movements are entirely integrated into the rivalries between the imperialist powers. This was true in both world wars, in the Cold War, and in today's more chaotic imperialist conflicts. Take the case of Palestinian nationalism: in the 30s it aligned itself with German and Italian imperialism against British imperialism when the latter supported Zionism; during the Cold War it turned to Russian imperialism and its various local client states; after the collapse of the USSR it turned to Saddam, and now it seeks to ally with Iran, or even with the European powers against the US and Israel. Zionism, of course, as the 'national liberation movement of the Jewish people' has been equally dependent on imperialism from the beginning, even if at certain moments it found itself in conflict with particular imperialist powers, as it did with Britain around 1948. The alliances change, the insoluble bond between nationalism and imperialism does not.

On the attitude of the proletariat towards imperialist wars: in the epoch of imperialism, all wars are imperialist save one: the class war. The only consistent position is the one Lenin took in 1914: turn the imperialist war into civil war. That of course is a general orientation, implying a dynamic towards revolution. But it remains crucial that faced with any imperialist war, revolutionaries call for workers to continue to defend their own material class interests against the demands of the war economy and the mobilisation for the slaughter. This is the most fundamental class line, the one that separates revolutionaries from the left wing of capital.

gilhyle

20th February 2007, 23:54

While advocating Lenin's 1914 position, I assume you accept that Lenin would not share your view of national liberation wars ?

Tell me how do you expect to have any credibility with the working classes of imperialised countries if you stand aside from their actual struggles and their actual oppresion. What you miss in your desire to fight only against capitalism, is that workers (like peasants etc.) in imperialised countries suffer violent, cruel oppression by imperialist powers, oppression causing violent death, starvation and poverty.....and you say you refuse to join them in that struggle because there are nationalists also willing to join that struggle ???

The legitimate concerns you have can be dealt with by operating a unitied front and building a revolutionary party on its own program within the process of struggle. If you cannot ally with impure forces at all, you can never make progress, you will never have any part in real politics. Even within your revolutionary party there are impure factions, in your immediate millieu the impure allies quickly multiply. In national politics the range of impure allies becomes innumerable. What you need is strategies that allow you to contribute to victories while retaining your revolutionary perpsective and building your revolutionary party.

Your approach of boycotting real struggles is a counsel of despair, subordinating the political struggle to your own private purity.

Alf

21st February 2007, 11:55

Lenin did not have the benefit of 80 years of experience of national liberation movements massacring the workers and leading them into imperialist wars. But in any case, for Lenin, what counted above all was the overall context. In the context of the imperialist war in Europe, for example, he refused to defend 'brave little Belgium' despite the fact that it was overrun by German imperialism, because that would have meant supporting the rival imperialist bloc.

gilhyle

22nd February 2007, 00:27

Brave little Belgium was a brutal imperialist power .... yeah anti imperialist struggles have led to regimes that attacked workers, so what....they have also led to national governments which can be pressured and even seized by revolutionary forces .... and have been.

Alf

22nd February 2007, 11:32

When?

gilhyle

22nd February 2007, 19:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:32 am
When?
When what ?

OK there have been no perfect revolutions and no revolutions led by what I would categorise as revolutionanry communists but, for example, the Afghan Revolution before the USSR came in and killed off the dominant wing of the Afghan CP, the Cuban Revolution.

But that last aspect of it isnt the key point, the key point is that there are now 180-190 (whatever) states in the world and in 1950 most of those states did not exist. You can consider that a bad thing or a good thing - I consider it a good thing.

PRC-UTE

22nd February 2007, 19:29

make gilhyle a mod ffs.

Devrim

23rd February 2007, 09:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 07:12 pm
But that last aspect of it isnt the key point, the key point is that there are now 180-190 (whatever) states in the world and in 1950 most of those states did not exist. You can consider that a bad thing or a good thing - I consider it a good thing.
This is possibly the most bizarre comment that I have seen on Revleft yet, and there is a lot of competition. Let's just take one example, or in fact six (maybe soon seven), Yugoslavia. In what way did the break up of Yugoslavia benefit the working class?. That it dragged workers into a bloody series of fratricidal wars is clear. I, however, don't consider this to be a good thing. How on Earth do the working class benefit from a proliferation of states?

Devrim

Alf

23rd February 2007, 14:45

I would certainly echo that. The proliferation of states, and the break-up of existing states into micro-states or "failed states", expresses a tendency towards the disintegration of capitalism which is posing a mortal threat to humanity.

But there's also the other point about revolutions. The question isn't whether or not they are "perfect", but what is their class nature.

The epoch of bourgeois revolutions ended at some point in the 19th century. From the first part of the 20th century only the proletarian revolution was on the agenda. So is gilhyle claiming that what happened in Afghanistan or Cuba were proletarian revolutions?

Entrails Konfetti

23rd February 2007, 15:58

There's certainly a contradiction within Leninism: turn the Imperialist War into a Class-War, but on the other hand support the national bourgeoisie against imperialists.

The problem with nationalism in the old-world, is that a larger chunk of land belonged to a state sometime in history, and the nationalists usually want it back.

In the case of the new-world, USA, it's not impossible for them to employ nationalism: " The enemy is against our ideals, we must stand together as a country, and make the world a safer place for our country".

Both are all about imperialist expansion.

All countries have gone through phases of isolationism, but historically that usually ends with another war. It's impossible to remain neutral. Countries tend to trade more with others that are closer in geographic location, or with similar ideologies-- and when their neighbour goes into conflict, they will eventually be attacked by their neighbours adversary for trading more with their enemy, and wind up in the conflict.

Someone mentioned about how there are more countries in the world, these are a result of World War One and Two. The Imperialists divided up the world this way as to appear humane, also because during this stage they didn't need colonies anymore. And maybe they did this to prevent blocs to challange their power.
Why do you think that when the USSR was declining the imperialists called for the USSR to grant their states more autonomy.

These new states didn't create their own autonomy, they had it given to them from above-- on the condition that their government was friendly to a super-power. Some of these states to day are becoming hostile to their old imperialist master, USA and shifting to another one, China.

PRC-UTE

24th February 2007, 05:33

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 23, 2007 03:58 pm
There's certainly a contradiction within Leninism: turn the Imperialist War into a Class-War, but on the other hand support the national bourgeoisie against imperialists.

That's not an accurate representation of the Leninist position.

PRC-UTE

24th February 2007, 05:34

Originally posted by devrimankara+February 23, 2007 09:08 am--> (devrimankara @ February 23, 2007 09:08 am)
[email protected] 22, 2007 07:12 pm
But that last aspect of it isnt the key point, the key point is that there are now 180-190 (whatever) states in the world and in 1950 most of those states did not exist. You can consider that a bad thing or a good thing - I consider it a good thing.
This is possibly the most bizarre comment that I have seen on Revleft yet, and there is a lot of competition. Let's just take one example, or in fact six (maybe soon seven), Yugoslavia. In what way did the break up of Yugoslavia benefit the working class?. That it dragged workers into a bloody series of fratricidal wars is clear. I, however, don't consider this to be a good thing. How on Earth do the working class benefit from a proliferation of states?

Devrim [/b]
Yes, if only those stupid third world people were still under imperialist governments, that would be so much better!

langer :lol:

Devrim

24th February 2007, 07:39

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+February 24, 2007 05:34 am--> (PRC-UTE @ February 24, 2007 05:34 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:08 am

[email protected] 22, 2007 07:12 pm
But that last aspect of it isnt the key point, the key point is that there are now 180-190 (whatever) states in the world and in 1950 most of those states did not exist. You can consider that a bad thing or a good thing - I consider it a good thing.
This is possibly the most bizarre comment that I have seen on Revleft yet, and there is a lot of competition. Let's just take one example, or in fact six (maybe soon seven), Yugoslavia. In what way did the break up of Yugoslavia benefit the working class?. That it dragged workers into a bloody series of fratricidal wars is clear. I, however, don't consider this to be a good thing. How on Earth do the working class benefit from a proliferation of states?

Devrim
Yes, if only those stupid third world people were still under imperialist governments, that would be so much better!

langer :lol: [/b]
I don't believe that ex-Yougoslavia is in the third world. Maybe it seems that way to you writing from the west, but not looking from Turkey.

The reply is a typical Stalinist argument though. Twist peoples' words, and imply that they said things that they didn't.

The question is still there. In what way was the break up of Yugoslavia, a 'good thing'?

Devrim

gilhyle

24th February 2007, 10:37

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 23, 2007 03:58 pm
These new states didn't create their own autonomy, they had it given to them from above-- on the condition that their government was friendly to a super-power.
Introducing Yugoslavia into the debate, when we were clearly talking about imperialised countries is just a pointless diversion. If you want to have a thread on the break up of Yugoslavia I am happy to have it. Its actually an important example - but of a different set of points. My own experience is that I have disagreed with people I am otherwise politically close to on the question of what stance to have taken in the break-up wars. So I see it as quite a nuanced question. Introduce it here and we will just loose the thread of the discussion.

the above quote is, once again, amazing to me - interesting how easily we find each others comments 'bizarre'. Let me explain why I find this statement bizarre.

We all know there is a tension within imperialist states in the imperialist stage of capitalism as to the the best way to dominate imperialised countries:

- by direct rule witout political rights;
- by direct rule with political rights;
- via a comprador bourgeoisie;
- via a puppet dictator;
- with/without the aid of military occupations or (more limited) bases

Fine. The imperialist bourgeoisie have that problem and the 'right' answer for them is not always the same. Direct rule without political rights proved very tempting for Capitalism from the 1850s -1950s. Brave little Belgium showed the advantages of that better than most - you can starve people to death, set impossible work targets and chop people's hands off when they dont meet them - great system, maximises profit, apparently minimises overheads.

So what then changed ? Lots of things changed from the 1950s. The first thing that changed is that from the 1930s on there were major national liberation movements throughout the world made up of people willing to sacrifice their lives to move to rule by State's that respected at least some basic freedoms and dignities. The true test of the value of national liberation was the number of people willing to fight for it. A related change was, of course, the strengthened position of the USSR after WW2, which meant that national liberation struggles were a gift for expanding the Soviet sphere of influence.

Thus the cost-benefit analysis changed. It did not change easily, it did not change clearly and unequivocally (witness: Vietnam)...most importantly it did not just 'change' ....the cost-benefit analysis of the best way to dominate imperialised countries was CHANGED by the blood of national liberation movements, movements that changed the world and opened up possibilities of basic political rights for billions of people....thats correct: I did say 'possibilities' and I accept they are often just precarious possibilities and not certainties. But there are no guarantees in this life.

If you want further support for all this look no further than Iraq, where new generations have to shed their blood again to expel imperialist military terror as the U.S. does a double check on the cost-benefit stats of direct military occupation.

So looking at the quote above....this quote represents really dangerous processism. History is made by people and we of all people should respect and value the difference political struggles have made to the political balance sheet. Basic changes like Imperialsim retreating across the globe from direct rule dont just happen. They are victories of struggle against oppression.

The reason why a Marxist defends an imperialised state against imperialist aggression is that an independent state, even under a Saddam Hussein, is a step forward compared to direct imperialist control.

When we discuss these issues it is a question of building a political movement that is loyal to real people and their real needs in a complex, imperfect world rather, than just being transfixed by an emptied out ideal of socialist society and a perfect proletarian revolution.

Entrails Konfetti

28th February 2007, 03:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 10:37 am
If you want further support for all this look no further than Iraq, where new generations have to shed their blood again to expel imperialist military terror as the U.S. does a double check on the cost-benefit stats of direct military occupation.
Yes and now a Vacuum is in place for someone to play dictator and side with USA or China.

So looking at the quote above....this quote represents really dangerous processism. History is made by people and we of all people should respect and value the difference political struggles have made to the political balance sheet.

If people didn't make history, history books could magically publish themselves-- yeah I get it. Little countries have been waging war of self-determination for about 100 years now, in some parts in the world its these wars are every day things. Yet there hasn't been a conclusion to this. Okay, so in some parts of the world they have fought, and the imperialists have given them some new borders, but within these borders are a puppet government.

Basic changes like Imperialsim retreating across the globe from direct rule dont just happen. They are victories of struggle against oppression.

I never said Imperialism grants itself from ruling other countries, it carves up borders to look humane, but at the same time this helps them claim their sphere of influence. It hasn't happened yet when a country is an island to themselves without siding within an imperialism against an imperialism.

The reason why a Marxist defends an imperialised state against imperialist aggression is that an independent state, even under a Saddam Hussein, is a step forward compared to direct imperialist control.

No, it's terrible because it subordinates class-war to nationalism, thus the revolving door spins again.

When we discuss these issues it is a question of building a political movement that is loyal to real people and their real needs in a complex, imperfect world rather, than just being transfixed by an emptied out ideal of socialist society and a perfect proletarian revolution.

If socialism is just a pie in the sky to you, you really don't have an understanding of it. On ther other hand if you're being pragmatic because you think nationalism will win, you are kidding yourself if you think these anti-worker nationalisms will help you in the future, it will work against you. These nationalisms will make others believe these anti-worker measures are your nature.

gilhyle

28th February 2007, 19:05

You answer me by doing two things:

- ignoring the fact that I advocate the Anti-Imperialist United Front in which the revolutioanry retains political independence;

- ignoring the possibility that the establishment of independent states facilitates the achievement of political rights.

No I dont think socialism IS pie in the sky.....but I believe it can be turned into that by people who insist on having only proletarian revolutionary programs although the democratic program of capitalism remains a focus of struggle.

Entrails Konfetti

28th February 2007, 22:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 07:05 pm
You answer me by doing two things:
Or I'm just not telling you what you want to hear.

- ignoring the fact that I advocate the Anti-Imperialist United Front in which the revolutioanry retains political independence;
That has only ever worked with China vs. Japan and Nazi Germany, and the Nationalists in China were weak at that time anyways, and at time were more concerned about the Maoists than the Japanese.

Now what has happened to China with the factor in mind, they have become imperalistic themselves.

You say look to Iraq, what about Iraq, there isn't an Anti-Imperialist United Front.

There hasn't been any successful Anti-Imperalist Fronts with Nationalists and Communists holding hands.

- ignoring the possibility that the establishment of independent states facilitates the achievement of political rights.

I ignore it because its not possible, nor has it ever been.

No I dont think socialism IS pie in the sky.....but I believe it can be turned into that by people who insist on having only proletarian revolutionary programs although the democratic program of capitalism remains a focus of struggle.

You're the one who wants a national-bourgeoisie set-up so you can have more leeway.

gilhyle

28th February 2007, 23:29

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 28, 2007 10:13 pm

I ignore it because its not possible, nor has it ever been.

Do I understand you....you are claiming there have never been ANY countries where national liberation movements have led from political disenfranchisement to a situation in which people have certain political rights ?

Entrails Konfetti

1st March 2007, 04:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 11:29 pm
Do I understand you....you are claiming there have never been ANY countries where national liberation movements have led from political disenfranchisement to a situation in which people have certain political rights ?
I've already said, that though there are national liberation movements, all the ever do is push those at the top. Then they may get some borders cut out for them, but under the condition their government is imperialist friendly. If not then they are allied with the rival imperialism. They do not get to ignore everything in the universe just because they have some new borders cut out for them.

Whats this talk of rights? The rights based on or the rights of man?
Yeah, let us not forget how limited these 'rights' are, you are allowed liberty by the government as long as you have property.

gilhyle

1st March 2007, 19:07

Sure, I dont deny much of that, but:

1. it has not always been true nor always will be true that imperialised countries will have to be consistently pro-imperialist to survive. Even in this period, there are imperialised countries that dont fall into that category. There seem to be many admirers of Chavez on this site - only the right of nations to self-determination allows someone like Chavez to come to power;

2. the building of the movement of the working class prospers most where people have rights of free speech, the right to vote and the right to organise trade unions. Without those rights it is intensely difficult to build a workers movement.

I dont have to admire those regimes or 'believe in them' to differentiate between better and worse, between countries where it is particularly difficult or easier to build a workers movement and it seems to me part of my politics to prefer the latter.

Devrim

1st March 2007, 20:23

Introducing Yugoslavia into the debate, when we were clearly talking about imperialised countries is just a pointless diversion.

Actually you wrote:

But that last aspect of it isnt the key point, the key point is that there are now 180-190 (whatever) states in the world and in 1950 most of those states did not exist. You can consider that a bad thing or a good thing - I consider it a good thing.

I consider that the break up of Yugoslavia is a part of that process. Basically it was a reply to your suggestion that a proliferation of states is a good thing in itself.

History is made by people and we of all people should respect and value the difference political struggles have made to the political balance sheet. Basic changes like Imperialsim retreating across the globe from direct rule dont just happen. They are victories of struggle against oppression.

Imperialism is not merely the policy of various states. It is a world system. Luxembourg is particular clear on this in the Janus pamphlet. There is no retreat of imperialism across the globe. There are merely changes in the balance of power.

A related change was, of course, the strengthened position of the USSR after WW2, which meant that national liberation struggles were a gift for expanding the Soviet sphere of influence.

This is only a 'good thing' if you consider that there was anything socialist about the USSR after WWII. If you consider that the USSR was completely capitalist, and in fact an imperialist state in itself, it merely illustrates my previous point about changes in the balance of power. National liberation struggles have a tendency to become mere pawns in imperialist conflict.

The reason why a Marxist defends an imperialised state against imperialist aggression is that an independent state, even under a Saddam Hussein, is a step forward compared to direct imperialist control.

Iraq under Saddam was not an 'independent state'. Until the Kuwait affair it was an American puppet, which launched a murderous war against Iran on behalf of American interests. As bad as the situation in Iraq is now, and it is terrible, the years of war against Iran were not exactly a great time for the working class.

ignoring the fact that I advocate the Anti-Imperialist United Front in which the revolutioanry retains political independence.

The 'Anti-Imperialist United Front' is an anti-working class front where the interests of the working class are subordinated to the interests of the nation. Communists must always start their analysis by looking at the working class, and these interests are not in dying for their own bourgeoisie.

2. the building of the movement of the working class prospers most where people have rights of free speech, the right to vote and the right to organise trade unions. Without those rights it is intensely difficult to build a workers movement.

It is not 1848 anymore. The Russian mass strike of 1905 marks the opening of a new period. It put workers revolution firmly on the agenda. The working class no longer has any interests in allying with the bourgeoisie.

The policy adopted by Lenin on the national question was a disaster for the revolution. We have posted on it before but the leftists seem to want to brush it under the carpet. The policy was theoretically flawed from the outset, and its results were catastrophic. The quote in this post deals with the results of Lenin's position:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=...st&p=1292139474 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=54176&hl=&view=findpost&p=1292139474)

Those who advocate a united front with the bourgeoisie are objectively the agents of the bourgeoisie within the working class.

Devrim

Entrails Konfetti

1st March 2007, 21:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:07 pm
1. it has not always been true nor always will be true that imperialised countries will have to be consistently pro-imperialist to survive. Even in this period, there are imperialised countries that dont fall into that category. There seem to be many admirers of Chavez on this site - only the right of nations to self-determination allows someone like Chavez to come to power;
Chavez has certainly allied with China.

2. the building of the movement of the working class prospers most where people have rights of free speech, the right to vote and the right to organise trade unions. Without those rights it is intensely difficult to build a workers movement

Yes, have unions as long as they don't strike, speak-- but your boss is listening, and vote-- between the rich candidates. Its the same as before.

PRC-UTE

2nd March 2007, 00:04

Originally posted by devrimankara+February 24, 2007 07:39 am--> (devrimankara @ February 24, 2007 07:39 am)
Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 24, 2007 05:34 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:08 am

[email protected] 22, 2007 07:12 pm
But that last aspect of it isnt the key point, the key point is that there are now 180-190 (whatever) states in the world and in 1950 most of those states did not exist. You can consider that a bad thing or a good thing - I consider it a good thing.
This is possibly the most bizarre comment that I have seen on Revleft yet, and there is a lot of competition. Let's just take one example, or in fact six (maybe soon seven), Yugoslavia. In what way did the break up of Yugoslavia benefit the working class?. That it dragged workers into a bloody series of fratricidal wars is clear. I, however, don't consider this to be a good thing. How on Earth do the working class benefit from a proliferation of states?

Devrim
Yes, if only those stupid third world people were still under imperialist governments, that would be so much better!

langer :lol:
I don't believe that ex-Yougoslavia is in the third world. Maybe it seems that way to you writing from the west, but not looking from Turkey.

The reply is a typical Stalinist argument though. Twist peoples' words, and imply that they said things that they didn't.

The question is still there. In what way was the break up of Yugoslavia, a 'good thing'?

Devrim [/b]
OK, lad, yeah, Stalinists are all liars and your political tendency is the only honest one and if only everyone would listen to you we'd be free now... :lol:

Calling me Stalinist is pretty silly lad, my political party formed by breaking with another party that adopted a Stalinist stagist strategy. Our founders were more influenced by the politics of Connolly and Trotsky than Stalin.

I'm not looking at Yugoslavia from the west, I was responding to your general attitude- that you don't support NL struggles, so naturally you must think victims of imperialism are better off under occupations. Yugoslavia has nothing to do with this discussion. The breakup of Yugoslavia wasn't NL, it was an imperialist financed overthrow of a degenerated workers state. If anything, it's a parallel to the British policy in Ireland -divide and rule by partitioning the Republic into seperate ethnic enclaves.

I've seen and lived through the effects of imperialism. And what Anton Pannekoek wrote long ago is still true; imperialism retards a nations development by liquadating capital and even turns back its progress.

PRC-UTE

2nd March 2007, 00:06

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 01, 2007 09:50 pm

2. the building of the movement of the working class prospers most where people have rights of free speech, the right to vote and the right to organise trade unions. Without those rights it is intensely difficult to build a workers movement

Yes, have unions as long as they don't strike, speak-- but your boss is listening, and vote-- between the rich candidates. Its the same as before.
same as before? :huh:

I think you really don't get how bad occupations are. They're far more murderous than your average class society. Your flippant attitude about anti-imperialism betrays a relatively privelaged position compared to those trying to throw off imperialist aggression.

PRC-UTE

2nd March 2007, 00:21

I dont think you see this at all, but Gilyhle's trying to help you lot here. He's attempting to pull your political orientation to something real world and immediate, rather than purely pie-in-sky demands (ie: everything will be fixed after the revolution, which must happen in one act or not at all :lol: ).

Your designer-brand ideologies are transparently insular and contrived. I don't believe for a second that you're a product of the workers' movement. I know that Leo isn't as he's actually shared some of his personal details- he's just some kid behind a computer.

The irony is that I've been in the workers' movement most my life now, even lost several jobs over my activities, and terms like 'bourgeois' and 'Stalinist' are being hurled at me :wub:

Entrails Konfetti

2nd March 2007, 06:32

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 02, 2007 12:21 am
I dont think you see this at all, but Gilyhle's trying to help you lot here. He's attempting to pull your political orientation to something real world and immediate, rather than purely pie-in-sky demands.
Oh yes he/she is helping alot by sounding like a basic pamphlet on the issue.

All you got on me is that I said it is "the same as before".
Same in the respects the workers cant organize and that they are told they don't matter, and not as in the Catholic Church on the corner is being bombed while you pray in it, ect.

rather than purely pie-in-sky demands (ie: everything will be fixed after the revolution, which must happen in one act or not at all :lol: ).
Um no, no one ever said that.

What we didn't say is that nationalism has to be a stage in the revolution, as a matter afact anyone who puts something so rigidly into stages are missingout on reality, it isn't fixed like that.

As to the National Question: Marx was talking about Poland under Czarist absolutism with reguards to the national-question. Lenin though this meant free-determination FOR ALL: without questioning when absolutism dropped from the scene and then the national-question became obsolete.

Your designer-brand ideologies are transparently insular and contrived. I don't believe for a second that you're a product of the workers' movement.

I must have hit a nerve there, and no, it wasn't easy being a child in a poor alcoholic single parent household.

Designer-Brand? I make up my own mind, if I wanted to follow some outdated dogma I'd read a bible.

The irony is that I've been in the workers' movement most my life now, even lost several jobs over my activities, and terms like 'bourgeois' and 'Stalinist' are being hurled at me :wub:

You talk like you're my age, and youre on this messageboard which says something... so you've been about 12 when you started working?

Activities? Like what?
Printing off PDFs somewhere on-line is bullshit, I know from experience.
Anyone with posterboard and a cardboard tube can protest.
Very few ppl on here have organized their work-places, let alone been in a union thats gone on strike.

Sorry, but you wanted to see some working-class certificate of authentation, instead of backing anything of your arguments up.

Now back up your argument about how starring up the Nationalists arses in Ireland for the past 80(?) years has helped emanicipate the working people. Back-up why its great to demoralize and hold workers back for your buddies the Nationalists.

Devrim

2nd March 2007, 07:54

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+--> (PRC-UTE)Your designer-brand ideologies are transparently insular and contrived. I don't believe for a second that you're a product of the workers' movement. I know that Leo isn't as he's actually shared some of his personal details- he's just some kid behind a computer.[/b]

I think that you may have confused me with Leo here. It is probably because the icon is the same. I will come back to your points about him later.

OK, lad, yeah,

Calling me Stalinist is pretty silly lad

Please, don't refer to me as Lad. It's quite patronising, and I reckon I have a few years on you.

Calling me Stalinist is pretty silly lad, my political party formed by breaking with another party that adopted a Stalinist stagist strategy. Our founders were more influenced by the politics of Connolly and Trotsky than Stalin.

I didn't actually call you a Stalinist. I said it was a Stalinist argument. The argument I am talking about is this:

I was responding to your general attitude- that you don't support NL struggles, so naturally you must think victims of imperialism are better off under occupations.

It has the intellectual sophistication of saying that as you don't support Manchester United you must support Chelsea. There is little point in discussing what we do believe with you when you fall back on this argument. You must know that it is untrue.

I've seen and lived through the effects of imperialism. And what Anton Pannekoek wrote long ago is still true; imperialism retards a nations development by liquadating capital and even turns back its progress.

We have all lived through imperialism. It is a world system. I presume that you are aware that Pannekoek was opposed to national liberation struggles too.

He's attempting to pull your political orientation to something real world and immediate, rather than purely pie-in-sky demands (ie: everything will be fixed after the revolution, which must happen in one act or not at all ).

We don't start from 'purely pie-in-sky demands'. We start from the every day struggle to defend workers living standards.

Your designer-brand ideologies are transparently insular and contrived. I don't believe for a second that you're a product of the workers' movement. I know that Leo isn't as he's actually shared some of his personal details- he's just some kid behind a computer.

EL KABLAMO
Very few ppl on here have organized their work-places, let alone been in a union thats gone on strike.

As I said before, I think that you mistook me for Leo, and that this was aimed at EL KABLAMO.

A few personal details about me though. I became a communist while working in London as a postman in the 80's. I was involved in running a group in the Post Office, Communication Worker Group with a magazine in the P.O. with a circulation of 8,000 per issue (workforce at the time 180,000) for over three of the years I worked there. I was involved in many strikes there including a national strike, which lasted three weeks. The last time I was involved in a strike was just less tyhan one year ago working in a small non-unionised shop where we walked off to defend a workmate who had been sacked. I don't know if this qualifies me to be 'a product of the workers' movement' in your eyes.

On the point of Leo, yes he is very young, and no he hasn't been involved in mass struggle. The last time we had large scale struggle in Turkey (1995), he was still at school. I think your comments on him being 'he's just some kid behind a computer' are a little unfair. Actually, Leo impresses me. The first time that we met him (as I remember I met him alone, but another comrade turned up later. She also has experience of workers' struggle), we were quite shocked by his youth (he was 17 at the time). He replied to our comments about this by saying that they have hung people my age for being communists (they did in the 70's in Turkey). Nowadays he is a tireless worker for our organisation, and is involved in producing our monthly workers' bulletin 'Gece Notları'. To be honest, I wish we had a few more 'kids behind computers'.

Devrim

Leo

3rd March 2007, 09:29

I don't believe for a second that you're a product of the workers' movement. I know that Leo isn't as he's actually shared some of his personal details- he's just some kid behind a computer.

Who the fuck are you to judge what I am a product of? Yes, I am sometimes behind a computer (and you know what? so are you shitbasket), but I mostly do militant work outside and for most of the time it is my father using the computer to look for jobs anyway. We live on social benefits as everyone in the family is unemployed. Also, half of my family has been in prison and went through years of torture, some of them are at the boundaries of losing their mental health, some of them who are really close to me.

And you are supposed to be a product of the workers movement? Fuck off, you are nothing but a product of anti-working class nationalism, a product of the ideology of the butchers of the working class.

PRC-UTE

3rd March 2007, 19:25

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 03, 2007 09:29 am

I don't believe for a second that you're a product of the workers' movement. I know that Leo isn't as he's actually shared some of his personal details- he's just some kid behind a computer.

Who the fuck are you to judge what I am a product of? Yes, I am sometimes behind a computer (and you know what? so are you shitbasket), but I mostly do militant work outside and for most of the time it is my father using the computer to look for jobs anyway. We live on social benefits as everyone in the family is unemployed. Also, half of my family has been in prison and went through years of torture, some of them are at the boundaries of losing their mental health, some of them who are really close to me.

And you are supposed to be a product of the workers movement? Fuck off, you are nothing but a product of anti-working class nationalism, a product of the ideology of the butchers of the working class.
my father worked in building sites, his dad worked in factories, I've only worked as an unskilled labourer and I've been sacked for organising. Yep, my background is working class as you get. I've been hungry and homeless at times. I was active in the workers movement before I became even politically aware, or active in Republican Socialism. It's not a hobby for me, it's a fight for my life and my family (oh how bourgeois, I have a family! :lol: ). And in response to El Kablamo: I didn't start working at 12, but 14.

I'm a product of anti-working class nationalism? So Connolly, Marx, Lenin and Engels were anti-working class? :lol: That's a good one.

of course I judge you. Why should any working person listen to your arguments if they're not tested in any way by real life? You can't take it when someone questions you on the internet without getting vulgar- how would you fare in real life so? You tell us that all real-world revolutions and struggles are not socialist, and you have all the answers... but no record to back it up...

Why SHOULD I take you seriously?

PRC-UTE

3rd March 2007, 19:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 07:54 am

We don't start from 'purely pie-in-sky demands'. We start from the every day struggle to defend workers living standards.
Hmm, that's interesting. Because when Leo was asked what communists should do in responce to L labelling all revolutions nationalist or state-cap or whatever it was, he replied: 'propaganda'. That was it.

So taking the position that all struggles in the real world can't be supported for one reason or another (they're nationalist, they're state-cap, etc) and the only thing communists should do (according to Leo) is make propaganda does strike me as a bit pie-in-the-sky.

However it's obvious you're actually a militant in the workers' movement, so I should be more careful about judging an entire group based on one of their young members bellegerent posts.

Aye, I'll refrain from calling you lad, no offence intended.

I honestly don't follow what you mean by lacking in intellectual sophistication because I say if you don't support the struggles of anti-imperialist workers you're siding with the imperialists...

It is as straightforward as that. Workers being murdered by occupation forces who fight back (like myself) are referred to as Nationalist which is just chuavinism. What I've always argued, in line with Conolly, is that the workers movement should take the lead in those struggles and not tail end the occupied nations bourgeoisie.

PRC-UTE

3rd March 2007, 19:41

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 02, 2007 06:32 am

The irony is that I've been in the workers' movement most my life now, even lost several jobs over my activities, and terms like 'bourgeois' and 'Stalinist' are being hurled at me :wub:

You talk like you're my age, and youre on this messageboard which says something... so you've been about 12 when you started working?

Now back up your argument about how starring up the Nationalists arses in Ireland for the past 80(?) years has helped emanicipate the working people. Back-up why its great to demoralize and hold workers back for your buddies the Nationalists.
I started working to support my family when I was 14, not 12. I'm older than you probably think. I'm not bragging or slabbering- just pointing out that I have trouble taking the word of some untested internet warriors who continually call me a bourgeois nationalist :lol: because I won't lie down and let the brits murder my friends and family. I've suffered for my politics and never wavered.

The last comments there are just bizarre. I get the same impression from your posts as I do from Leo's- that you're not even trying, just taking the piss. The nationalist parties in Ireland hate the IRSP... :lol: This would be a lot better convo if you'd put some effort into it.

Leo

3rd March 2007, 20:23

I'm a product of anti-working class nationalism? So Connolly

Despite his rhetoric, in the end of the day, Connolly was.

of course I judge you. Why should any working person listen to your arguments if they're not tested in any way by real life? You can't take it when someone questions you on the internet without getting vulgar- how would you fare in real life so? You tell us that all real-world revolutions and struggles are not socialist, and you have all the answers... but no record to back it up...

And the record of your organization is blowing peoples brains, the record of your ideology is continuing wage slavery and capitalist relations. Good fucking job!

I am not telling I have all the answer, I have never did, but I have more than what Marx had when he wrote the Communist Manifesto; I have all those workers struggles, formation of councils and even those councils taking actual power (and losing them) to show - that's something. All you have dead left-capitalist and anti-working class nationalist paradigms.

So taking the position that all struggles in the real world can't be supported for one reason or another (they're nationalist, they're state-cap, etc)

This quote shows your understanding of struggles; which is blowing off peoples brains, proletarians killing each other for the glory of the nation etc. My understanding of struggle is actual class struggle, like strikes etc. Obviously they are not violent enough to be considered "struggles in real world".

and the only thing communists should do (according to Leo) is make propaganda does strike me as a bit pie-in-the-sky.

Quite obviously you are more interested in more violent ways... Propaganda is a large term, also it is needless to mention that communists should do all they can in the class struggle within their range but the point was communists should go out killing people, blowing up stuff or ordering the class which they are a part of around.

What I've always argued, in line with Conolly, is that the workers movement should take the lead in those struggles and not tail end the occupied nations bourgeoisie.

Yet it is impossible for workers to lead a nationalist movement; why should workers murder fellow workers if it is up to them? A national liberation movement has to be and has always been lead by the bourgeoisie - that's by definition, and always the 'socialist' wings of those movements either got completely integrated in the uprising nation bourgeoisie or got wiped out by the uprising national bourgeoisie. Hell, how more obvious can it be, British workers have the same interests with the Irish ones and they are opposed to both bourgeoisies. Why the fuck should those workers kill each other then? Whose interests is this in?

Workers being murdered by occupation forces who fight back (like myself) are referred to as Nationalist which is just chuavinism.

It is the perspective you have which is nationalist. "Us" and "them", the "occupation forces" and the "oppressed nation"... You actually think that, in the end, Irish bosses would be better than British bosses, yes dressed in red flags and all but still... Look, I understand this mentality quite well, in fact being a Kurd, I am quite familiar to this mentality, I've listened to this bullshit all my life. This is anti-working class, I don't want to kill any fellow worker forced to wear a uniform, it is completely against my and their class interests. The proletarian movement is fraternization of workers in all lands - killing is not fraternization.

Why SHOULD I take you seriously?

Quite frankly I couldn't care less, you do if you do, you don't if you don't. Yet, why are you even talking to me if you aren't taking me seriously?

Oh and how bourgeois, I am a kid who uses a computer! <_<

They hanged people younger than me for being communists here, I have relatives who went into prison and experienced torture when they were younger than me. I am sorry, I am not really ashamed of being young.

PRC-UTE

3rd March 2007, 20:50

That was the biggest collection of ad hominems and strawman attacks I've ever seen. :wub: You should win an award for that.

This is why talking to you is such a waste of time; you never respond to what anyone actually posts, you just go off ranting. :rolleyes: I've already explained my background and my activities as an organiser. I'm done with this.

Leo

3rd March 2007, 21:09

I've already explained my background and my activities as an organiser.

Yes, you did, and my activities as a militant were also explained. What did you expect me to say on that, really?

This is why talking to you is such a waste of time... I'm done with this.

I understand you, it is okay... It must be hard to justify support for proletarians killing each other.

Entrails Konfetti

3rd March 2007, 23:49

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 03, 2007 07:41 pm
I'm not bragging or slabbering- just pointing out that I have trouble taking the word of some untested internet warriors who continually call me a bourgeois nationalist

I didn't call you a bourgeois-nationalist, I said you were sucking up to them.
A united-front consists of organizing with the nationalists, yet they hate you-- now that really is confusing.

So I can't have theoretical opinions because I'm still learning how to organize. Its very hard to practice in a highly unclass-conscious country. Have you heard of the middle-class myth in this country?

Well, out of USA 47% of people claim middle-class, 22% are weathly, 5% are super-rich, and 26% claim working-class or poor. But only a few of those who claim middle-class earn a middle-class salary. Most of the 47% are wage workers.
The majority seems to believe they are middle-class, yet something like 2% each year plummets into working-class.

Especially where I live, there isn't much a tradition of labour organizing, if there is its usually the immigrants. This is a a right to work state. Its weird, most working-class people here get upset when you talk about organizing, they talk like its a bad-thing.

because I won't lie down and let the brits murder my friends and family. I've suffered for my politics and never wavered.

All imperialist and capitalist armies should turn their guns the otherway around.

I get the same impression from your posts as I do from Leo's- that you're not even trying, just taking the piss.

Likewise, you answer everything briefly and don't go into any discussion how this unified-front can turn into a classwar, and why it works.

You take everything I say like its an attack on your character, and you act like I shouldn't have an opinion on occupied countries because I don't live in one.

PRC-UTE

4th March 2007, 03:59

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 03, 2007 11:49 pm
I didn't call you a bourgeois-nationalist, I said you were sucking up to them.
A united-front consists of organizing with the nationalists, yet they hate you-- now that really is confusing.

We don't form broad fronts with nationalists, in fact our party members are banned from workign with groups like the AOH.

because I won't lie down and let the brits murder my friends and family. I've suffered for my politics and never wavered.

All imperialist and capitalist armies should turn their guns the otherway around.

I get the same impression from your posts as I do from Leo's- that you're not even trying, just taking the piss.

Likewise, you answer everything briefly and don't go into any discussion how this unified-front can turn into a classwar, and why it works.

You take everything I say like its an attack on your character, and you act like I shouldn't have an opinion on occupied countries because I don't live in one.

You don't have any constructive advice for us is the problem.

Of course I'd prefer if the brit army turned their guns on their officers.

But they didn't, they shot my friends and relatives.

What should we have done?

I understand you, it is okay... It must be hard to justify support for proletarians killing each other.

Exactly what I'm talking about; your halfbaked attempts at being witty in pidgin English are getting old.

You realise the logic of your statement- if you mean that we were killing workers in uniform, the BA, (that's the vast majority of republican vicitms, members of the security forces) they would be scabs by your definition. They went round murdering working people for the bosses. They started the war by murdering innocent unarmed workers after all.

But no one ever said that consistency was the strength of the trendy ultra left! :lol:

Entrails Konfetti

4th March 2007, 04:26

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 04, 2007 03:59 am

We don't form broad fronts with nationalists, in fact our party members are banned from workign with groups like the AOH.
...
You don't have any constructive advice for us is the problem.

Of course I'd prefer if the brit army turned their guns on their officers.
You are unable in one or another to form an alliance with these assholes.

I don't get it, why do you have to take sort of a nationalist approach to some issues-- no Socialist supports foreign occupation or standing armies of any sort.
Then this approach leads to supporting one country over another, :huh: like socialists really believe in the concept of private property.

I'm pulling this out my ass, but I think you try to dress-up all pro-country to gain popularity, so your neighbours don't think your someone out to harm them.

Leo

4th March 2007, 07:46

You realise the logic of your statement- if you mean that we were killing workers in uniform, the BA, (that's the vast majority of republican vicitms, members of the security forces) they would be scabs by your definition. They went round murdering working people for the bosses. They started the war by murdering innocent unarmed workers after all.

They were following orders, like them in the first world war, or in fact any other war. They were, as usual, mostly working-class soldiers, working for the army because they were poor. And of course, the uprising bourgeoisie against them went round murdering them this time, organizing their armies and all, not the mention the bombings and similar attacks. When we are talking about a capitalist war, "they started it" is hardly a good justification.

But weren't you done with me anyway?

Vargha Poralli

4th March 2007, 08:03

They were following orders, like them in the first world war, or in fact any other war. They were, as usual, mostly working-class soldiers, working for the army because they were poor. And of course, the uprising bourgeoisie against them went round murdering them this time, organizing their armies and all, not the mention the bombings and similar attacks. When we are talking about a capitalist war, "they started it" is hardly a good justification.

I don't get what you are saying ?

So workers in Imperialised cpountries should never rise against imperialists because in the End it would only help Bourgeoisie ?

So what should workers in a Imperialised nation do ?

It would be great if the workers of the Imperialist nation overthrow their government and give independence to all workers. But that did not happen during the Colonial times or in these neo-imperialist times.

Your Logic is really confusing.

Leo

4th March 2007, 09:23

So workers in Imperialised cpountries should never rise against imperialists because in the End it would only help Bourgeoisie ?

So what should workers in a Imperialised nation do ?

It would be great if the workers of the Imperialist nation overthrow their government and give independence to all workers. But that did not happen during the Colonial times or in these neo-imperialist times.

First of all, just as you can't divide the world into "nations", you can't divide the world into imperialist and non-imperialist "nations": this is a completely bourgeois perspective. Imperialism is a world epoch, and no nation-state, proto-nation state or organization trying to act like a nation state can break this; quite the contrary they will be serving imperialism - their imperialism.

Workers have no country, and killing and dying for the national bourgeoisie isn't in the interests of the working class. What is necessary is fraternization of workers across all boundaries, and fighting the class enemy: the world bourgeoisie. The interests of an Irish worker is not different than the interests of the English worker - killing each other is against the interests of both.

Entrails Konfetti

4th March 2007, 17:50

Originally posted by PRC UTE
You don't have any constructive advice for us is the problem.

Of course I'd prefer if the brit army turned their guns on their officers.

But they didn't, they shot my friends and relatives.

What should we have done?

Defended yourself against the invaiders, and get them to retreat, ofcourse. While at the same time, if at all posible propagandize to BA to fratenise with the Irish working-class. If they refuse, you have to defend yourself.
Theres no need at all to cater to the national bourgeoisie

I don't know what your thoughts on terrorism on towards civilian working-class British people, but I think it's anti-working-class.

PRC-UTE

4th March 2007, 18:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 08:03 am

They were following orders, like them in the first world war, or in fact any other war. They were, as usual, mostly working-class soldiers, working for the army because they were poor. And of course, the uprising bourgeoisie against them went round murdering them this time, organizing their armies and all, not the mention the bombings and similar attacks. When we are talking about a capitalist war, "they started it" is hardly a good justification.

I don't get what you are saying ?

So workers in Imperialised cpountries should never rise against imperialists because in the End it would only help Bourgeoisie ?

So what should workers in a Imperialised nation do ?

It would be great if the workers of the Imperialist nation overthrow their government and give independence to all workers. But that did not happen during the Colonial times or in these neo-imperialist times.

Your Logic is really confusing.
Aye, his logic is confusing as there is no logic.

He's full of sympathy it seems for professional killers for capitalism, but those workers that fight back are 'anti-working class bourgeois nationalists'.

PRC-UTE

4th March 2007, 18:15

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+March 04, 2007 05:50 pm--> (EL KABLAMO @ March 04, 2007 05:50 pm)
PRC UTE
You don't have any constructive advice for us is the problem.

Of course I'd prefer if the brit army turned their guns on their officers.

But they didn't, they shot my friends and relatives.

What should we have done?

Defended yourself against the invaiders, and get them to retreat, ofcourse. While at the same time, if at all posible propagandize to BA to fratenise with the Irish working-class. If they refuse, you have to defend yourself.
Theres no need at all to cater to the national bourgeoisie

I don't know what your thoughts on terrorism on towards civilian working-class British people, but I think it's anti-working-class. [/b]
I don't know what you mean by catering to the bourgeoisie. The Irish bourgeoisie arguablly did more to destroy the IRSP than the even the Brits. Read this, about the Free State's mass arrest and torture of IRSP members. (http://irsm.org/history/starryplough/reserved_judgement.html)

We've never been allied with the Irish bourgeoisie (the Irish capitalist class are fine with partition and are anti-republican). We were at war with the Irish governments security forces who killed republicans. The only reason some lefties make that accusation is frankly because they don't know enough about Ireland - Leo's an extreme example.

The INLA never attacked British civilians, we never took part in the economic bombing campaign as the PIRA did. I once told a provo supporter that those attacks were unaceptable as some of those attacks terrorised british workers which is counterproductive and he became so angry he threatened me. :lol: 'I owe my allegiance to the working class'- Séamus Costello, founder of the IRSP.

Leo

4th March 2007, 18:19

Ah, the classic - that's what I had been expecting.

Because I don't support one band of nationalist murderers, just because I don't support kidnapping dentists and chopping off their fingers or shooting taxi drivers in the back (does the actions of your organization sound familiar to you?), I should be supporting the other band of murderers. Makes perfect sense, and you are talking about logic? :rolleyes:

I support the working class, the interests of the working class and a proletarian alternative for the whole world, period. Defense of no national bourgeoisie's claimed boundaries from the occupying bourgeoisie is in the interests of the proletariat. What is in the interests of the proletariat is fraternization across all boundaries.

The only reason some lefties make that accusation is frankly because they don't know enough about Ireland - Leo's an extreme example.

I am sorry, but I do know enough about Ireland.

PRC-UTE

4th March 2007, 18:38

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 04, 2007 06:19 pm
I am sorry, but I do know enough about Ireland.
Sure ya do. ;)

go to Ireland and tell some folks that the INLA fought for the Irish bourgeoisie. I can't wait to see the reaction :lol:

You're a good example of why ignorance isn't the problem so much as being convinced you know what you're talking about when you know fuck all.

Leo

4th March 2007, 18:40

Maybe I should just talk to the families of their victims...

"It's just cost John two of his fingers. Now I'm going to chop him into bits and pieces and send fresh lumps of him every fucking day if I don't get my money fast."

<_<

PRC-UTE

4th March 2007, 20:50

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 04, 2007 06:40 pm
Maybe I should just talk to the families of their victims...

"It's just cost John two of his fingers. Now I'm going to chop him into bits and pieces and send fresh lumps of him every fucking day if I don't get my money fast."

<_<
What does Dessie O'Hare, who wasn't a member of the INLA when he kidnapped that petite bourgeois dentist have anything to do with what you previously siad? that has WHAT relevance to your claim that we fought for the bourgeoisie?

still can't back up you claims I see and not surprised.

Leo

4th March 2007, 22:12

What does Dessie O'Hare, who wasn't a member of the INLA when he kidnapped that petite bourgeois dentist have anything to do with what you previously siad?

Is this the best you can do?

Originally posted by Wikipedia
In 1987 O'Hare and two other INLA members kidnapped John O'Grady, a dentist from Dublin. The gang had intended to seize Austin Darragh, owner of the Institute of Clinical Pharmacology. However Darragh had moved from the house three years previously. O'Grady was his son in law. He then demanded a $1.9m ransom. He was initially held in a Dublin basement before being moved to
Cork, where he was held in a cargo container. After ransom demands were not met O'Hare cut off two of O'Grady's fingers with a hammer and chisel. In a telephone call to the Garda Síochána O'Hare stated:

"It's just cost John two of his fingers. Now I'm going to chop him into bits and pieces and send fresh lumps of him every fucking day if I don't get my money fast."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dessie_O'Hare

The Free Dessie O'Hare Campaign:

http://www.irsm.org/irsp/free_dessie/

Good to see INLA holds tight to guys like "comrade" Dessie, they do after all need people who can chop people to their pieces to get their money. <_<

If the "petite bourgeois dentist" is not enough, then take a look at the taxi driver...

that has WHAT relevance to your claim that we fought for the bourgeoisie?

It is an example giving away the bourgeois methods of your organization, like all those personal feuds, internal executions etc.

I may just be a "kid" but I know how all national liberation movements work very well, as I said I am Kurdish and the movements are quite similar, perhaps the war is more brutal here for both nationalists and worse for workers from the both sides.

And you are fighting to form an "independent" nation state by whatever means necessary. This is enough.

PRC-UTE

5th March 2007, 02:22

Devrim

5th March 2007, 13:09

Dessie O'Hare wasn't a member of the INLA when that occured, but regardless, he's one of the only INLA members to be accused of anything like that. Although you're trying to smear us tabloid-style based on the exploits of one person, the fact is that the INLA mostly fought a clean fight and the overwhelming majority of attacks were against legitimate targets.

That you're so quick to spread black propaganda makes me wonder to which agenda you're working for...

The actions of O'Hare, and co are not the reason that we say that the politics of the IRSP are bourgeois. They are merely the logical result of those politics. It is interesting though how you seem to vacillate from statements denying the involvement of the INLA to seemingly condoning these type of actions:

Dessie O'Hare wasn't a member of the INLA when that occured

What Des did was wrong, which he now admits, but it was done to a bourgeois not a worker anyway.

The admission that he was 'wrong' does not seem to come any revaluation of the strategy of the IRSP. It is merely an admission that mistakes were made.

Also interesting is that you go from referring to Leo as:

just some kid behind a computer

to suggesting that he may be a state asset:

That you're so quick to spread black propaganda makes me wonder to which agenda you're working for...

This is the methodology of Stalinism.

When we say that the politics of the IRSP are bourgeois, it does not mean that we are saying that the membership of that organisation are members of the bourgeoisie. What we are suggesting is that the politics of nationalism are bourgeois. It is certainly undeniable that the IRSP has a nationalist programme, and that they think that the class struggle is intrinsically linked to the national struggle:

Originally posted by This is Republican Socialism+--> (This is Republican Socialism)The gaining of collective economic control of the nation'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. The recognition of a separate Irish cultural identity and the establishment of revolutionary 32- county socialist republic. [/b]

Originally posted by This is Republican [email protected]
The struggle for national liberation cannot be separated from the class struggle.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. We would argue the whole policy of supporting national liberation struggles was wrong in Lenin's day, and that it was absolutely disastrous for the revolution. A point which nobody has replied to our arguments on (see this post on a thread about Kurdish nationalists shooting striking workers):

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=...st&p=1292139474 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=54176&hl=&view=findpost&p=1292139474)

Today, the struggle for national liberation has nothing to offer the working class. The IRSP write that:

This is Republican Socialism
However, we stand totally opposed to the political ideology of loyalism. Loyalism is a reactionary, sectarian and proimperialist ideology, with which we can make no compromise. We recognise that nationalism in the context of the Irish struggle is progressive, but we also recognise that nationalism can play a reactionary role. The national chauvinism of the Tories, National Front, etc. is counterrevolutionary and anathema to socialists. The nationalism of an oppressed country is vastly different from such reactionary jingoism.

We would also argue that Irish Republicanism is a reactionary and sectarian ideology, and would state that nationalisms of oppressed countries are also counter revolutionary. The IRSP has nothing to offer the majority of the working class in Northern Ireland. Its ideas about struggle are not based upon uniting workers as workers, but in uniting people to take one side in a deadly war between two factions neither of which have anything to offer the working class.

At some points Connelly himself was very clear about this:

If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of the socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole army of commercial and individual institutions she has planted in this country...

In this quotation Connelly is perfectly clear about the fact that national independence is impossible under capital. The point is whether the national movement has anything to offer the working class at all. We say that it has nothing to offer workers except fratricidal conflict under one national banner, or another. The way forward in Ireland is shown by protestant, and catholic workers fighting together in their own interests, as in last years postal strike, not in dividing workers into an ethnic war.

I know that the IRSP claims to be anti-sectarian, but I don't think that that is how its actions are perceived by protestant workers. Rather, I would suggest that the INLA became another group of gangsters with a bit of left wing rhetoric. It has nothing to offer, but a deepening of sectarian tensions.

Finally, I don't want to throw about any accusations, but you should certainly think before you make comments about the 'pidgin English' of non-native speakers.

Exactly what I'm talking about; your halfbaked attempts at being witty in pidgin English are getting old.

After all we wouldn't make comments about your ability in your second language. It really isn't very polite.

Devrim

Vargha Poralli

5th March 2007, 15:54

This thread is Obviously aking for a suggestion about what should Proletariat do during war. But the stupidity of this question is that it doesn't defines what constitutes a War.

And some of you surprisingly quoted Lenin that we have to turn the war in to a class war without even considering the situations that had lead Lenin,Luxemburg and other revolutionaries to make that decision. Lenin words got through the Russian people only after 4 years and German soldiers never rose up against their masters until after the German Spring Offensive of 1918. And no need to talk about the British and French proletariat who never rose up.

War is not a thing about which we can form up our theories. When in war we only think saving our own skins from the hail of bullets and bombs that is raining down on us. The best thing a proletariat can do in War situation is to further its demands and make some way to gain some new power.

Certainly to defeat the imperialists it is the task of the proletariat of all nations to drive out bourgeoisie. Efoorts for that should be done not only during the war but also during the non-combat times.

PRC-UTE

5th March 2007, 18:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:09 pm
The admission that he was 'wrong' does not seem to come any revaluation of the strategy of the IRSP. It is merely an admission that mistakes were made.

No re-evaluation?

Yet the IRSP/INLA have apologised for what mistakes were made, changed the structure of our movement and called a ceasefire for the time being and adhere to a 'no first strike policy'. So I'd say you're missing a few details there.

If this is not extreme ignorance on your part, it is at the very least an attempt to fetishise one issue to prove something that isn't true to begin with.

to suggesting that he may be a state asset:

That you're so quick to spread black propaganda makes me wonder to which agenda you're working for...

Pardon me for suggesting, allow me to state it more clearly: he repeats the lies and bourgeois slander against our party; he is objectively doing the work of the state whether its for one ideology or another.

This is the methodology of Stalinism.

Oh that hurt.

Your methodology is one of consistently misrepresenting my position (and the position of Connolly) and then attacking me on that basis.

It is certainly undeniable that the IRSP has a nationalist programme, and that they think that the class struggle is intrinsically linked to the national struggle:

At some points Connelly himself was very clear about this:

If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of the socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole army of commercial and individual institutions she has planted in this country...

In this quotation Connelly is perfectly clear about the fact that national independence is impossible under capital.

I'm not sure what your point is here- the position of Connolly is the basic programme of the IRSP. We've always maintained that NL is impossible without socialism. And we didn't abandon that stance, even when the Irish government's forces, the Brits, OIRA, loyalists, SAS, RUC and PIRA murdered and tortured us.

I know that the IRSP claims to be anti-sectarian, but I don't think that that is how its actions are perceived by protestant workers. Rather, I would suggest that the INLA became another group of gangsters with a bit of left wing rhetoric. It has nothing to offer, but a deepening of sectarian tensions.

Good point- it matters not that we attract Protestant members or leaders, it matters how one section of the Protestant community in one region of Ireland perceive us. Of course you don't take into account that a significant portion of that community regard any equality with Catholics as a 'sell out' of their heritage.

Care to offer any evidence that we're gangsters? I imagine like your claim that we fight for the bourgeoisie, (the same Irish bourgeoisie we fought against ffs :lol: ) you will bow out of substantiating it. It seems to be your group's 'thing' to spread slander about other parties, employing the rhetoric of the bourgeoisie and refusing to provide any evidence.

After all we wouldn't make comments about your ability in your second language. It really isn't very polite.

I don't try to act witty in a second language while embarassing myself.

I accept btw that both you and Leo have no evidence that we're 'bourgeois'. Nice talking with you both, slán.

Leo

5th March 2007, 20:12

Although you're trying to smear us tabloid-style based on the exploits of one person, the fact is that the INLA mostly fought a clean fight and the overwhelming majority of attacks were against legitimate targets.

Like that feud with the IPLO? Or INLA/GHQ? Those ten internal executions? Oh, they were evil splitters or traitors of the cause for the nation weren't they?

That you're so quick to spread black propaganda makes me wonder to which agenda you're working for...

Yeah fucknut, as a kid behind his computer and all the way from Turkey, I am working for the British police, trying to spread black propaganda in an internet forum :rolleyes:

It is quite easy to find information about your organization in the net, there is something called Wikipedia if you don't know.

Well I pose to you this question- what if one of the immedaite demands of the proletariat is for the end of a murderous occupation?

Occupation of what, the "fatherland"?

I, of course, don't deny that the situation in Ireland was (honestly I don't know if it still is that much but anyway) murderous. This is capitalism: as long as there are exploited and exploiting classes, capitalism is war and war is capitalism; this includes the war for the defense of the "fatherland", national liberation struggles etc. Nationalist struggles, including national liberation struggles, can not and has never been able to provide a perspective for the proletariat; quite the contrary, it is always against the independent struggles of the proletariat; although "red" versions of the nationalist ideology do claim that class struggle is subordinated to the nationalist cause as your organization tries to do, this is an obvious lie.

But I would be surprised if the INLA did, I personally know plenty of irps that drive taxis

Yes, this guy was an ex INLA member.

Originally posted by Irish News
A WEST BELFAST taxi driver was shot dead last night in the car park of the depot where he worked. The victim, named locally as Mark McNeill, was shot up to six times beside his taxi in the car park of Apollo Taxis on the Shaw’s Road at around 6.45. The father of five, from Dalebrook Park in west Belfast, was taken by ambulance to the Royal Victoria Hospital where he died a short time later (...) Early this morning there were no indications that loyalists were involved. A teenage girl who witnessed the shooting said two gunmen wearing hooded tops approached the victim, who was in his early 30s, as he was getting out of his car. She saw the gunmen push Mr McNeill against railings and shoot him in the legs and back. The victim made an attempt to run and was shot again (...) THE brother of a west Belfast taxi driver shot dead on Friday evening claimed yesterday that his murder was sanctioned by a leading member of the INLA because of a “personal grudge.” Father-of-five Mark McNeill, from Helenswood Court off the Stewartstown Road, was shot six times in the backyard of Apollo Taxis on the Shaw’s Road. Eyewitnesses said that the 32-year-old, who had been working for the firm for less than a month, was ambushed by two masked gunmen as he got out of his taxi (...) The man, who admitted his brother was a former member of the INLA, said he had feared for his life because of a long-running internal feud over leadership of the organisation.

As Devrim pointed out, those events not the reason that we say that the politics of the IRSP are bourgeois. They are merely the logical result of those politics.

I think before bombing in 82, INLA members carried out several reconnaissance missions "to see if there were enough soldiers to justify the possibility of civilian killings". Is this enough evidence about the anti-working class nature of the organization? How about getting guns from the IRA for assassinations?

Care to offer any evidence that we're gangsters?

INLA (I Never Leave Anything) and IRSP's (I Rob Shops and Post offices) reputation is a valid evidence in my opinion.

gilhyle

5th March 2007, 21:34

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 04, 2007 05:50 pm

Defended yourself against the invaiders, and get them to retreat, ofcourse. While at the same time, if at all posible propagandize to BA to fratenise with the Irish working-class. If they refuse, you have to defend yourself.
Theres no need at all to cater to the national bourgeoisie

Now, just one question: there you are crouched down with your rusted old AK, trying to hold it together, waiting for your chance to get a shot off and some guy comes up to join you, whose politics you dont share (cos he is a nationalist) but he is willing to go across the road and set up a cross fire with you. Do you

a) shoot him

b) work with him on this occasion

c) tell him to go home, this is your ambush.

d) go home and let him do the ambush, muttering all the way about it not being fair that nationalists take over all the good ambushes.

Entrails Konfetti

8th March 2007, 00:07

Originally posted by gilhyle+March 05, 2007 09:34 pm--> (gilhyle @ March 05, 2007 09:34 pm)
EL [email protected] 04, 2007 05:50 pm

Defended yourself against the invaiders, and get them to retreat, ofcourse. While at the same time, if at all posible propagandize to BA to fratenise with the Irish working-class. If they refuse, you have to defend yourself.
Theres no need at all to cater to the national bourgeoisie

Now, just one question: there you are crouched down with your rusted old AK, trying to hold it together, waiting for your chance to get a shot off and some guy comes up to join you, whose politics you dont share (cos he is a nationalist) but he is willing to go across the road and set up a cross fire with you. Do you

a) shoot him

b) work with him on this occasion

c) tell him to go home, this is your ambush.

d) go home and let him do the ambush, muttering all the way about it not being fair that nationalists take over all the good ambushes. [/b]
How hypothetical is that?
And if I'm doing an ambush and some guy sees me, I must be doing a crappy job.

Devrim

8th March 2007, 10:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 09:34 pm
Now, just one question: there you are crouched down with your rusted old AK, trying to hold it together, waiting for your chance to get a shot off and some guy comes up to join you, whose politics you dont share (cos he is a nationalist) but he is willing to go across the road and set up a cross fire with you. Do you

a) shoot him

b) work with him on this occasion

c) tell him to go home, this is your ambush.

d) go home and let him do the ambush, muttering all the way about it not being fair that nationalists take over all the good ambushes.
What is it with this fetish about violence, guns, and killing people on this site?
There is a whole thread about it here: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63311&hl=
Why aren't this people asking real questions that start with things like "You are in a mass meeting at work, the union want to call off the strike...", or "You go on a flying picket, but the workers at the place you are picketing are reluctant to support you..."?

Judging from the ages written on the other thread, I presume it is some sort of teenage machismo.

Vargha Poralli

8th March 2007, 11:10

What is it with this fetish about violence, guns, and killing people on this site?

I think it is very stupid question coming from you considering other posts you have made.

This thread is about WAR which is about GUNS,VIOLENCE and KILLING OTHER PEOPLE. I think gilhyle had asked some questions which ius entirely related to this thread so don't deviate it.

Why aren't this people asking real questions that start with things like "You are in a mass meeting at work, the union want to call off the strike...", or "You go on a flying picket, but the workers at the place you are picketing are reluctant to support you..."?

Actually i think there is a lot of threads made about scabs and points are given on both sides.

****************************
Yes I know a lot of fetish for Guns and Violence on this board and anybody saying poiting this out has been booed out as Pacifist Scum. I think there is a lot of influence of Hollywood movies on board members. But certainly gilhyle is not one member IMHO.

Devrim

8th March 2007, 13:58

Originally posted by g.ram+March 08, 2007 11:10 am--> (g.ram @ March 08, 2007 11:10 am)
What is it with this fetish about violence, guns, and killing people on this site?

I think it is very stupid question coming from you considering other posts you have made.

[/b]
I don't think that I have made any posts, which show a fetish for violence.

What I have said on violence is:

Devrim
Violence will be necessary in a revolution. It is not the central question, and it is not something to be glorified.

This thread is about WAR which is about GUNS,VIOLENCE and KILLING OTHER PEOPLE. I think gilhyle had asked some questions which ius entirely related to this thread so don't deviate it.

I think that the questions are entirely empty. They are completely devoid of any political context, and seem to see workers revolution like some kind of guerrilla war. I don't.

Devrim

Vargha Poralli

8th March 2007, 15:40

Originally posted by devrimankara+March 08, 2007 07:28 pm--> (devrimankara @ March 08, 2007 07:28 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 11:10 am

What is it with this fetish about violence, guns, and killing people on this site?

I think it is very stupid question coming from you considering other posts you have made.

I don't think that I have made any posts, which show a fetish for violence.

What I have said on violence is:

Devrim
Violence will be necessary in a revolution. It is not the central question, and it is not something to be glorified.

This thread is about WAR which is about GUNS,VIOLENCE and KILLING OTHER PEOPLE. I think gilhyle had asked some questions which ius entirely related to this thread so don't deviate it.

I think that the questions are entirely empty. They are completely devoid of any political context, and seem to see workers revolution like some kind of guerrilla war. I don't.

Devrim [/b]

I don't think that I have made any posts, which show a fetish for violence.

You have misunderstood me. I didn't mean that you fetished violence, but the questions gilhyle posted where extremely related to this post which is about War(or something else the topic heading says it is about war) but you accused him for fetishing violence. I think it is really stupid considering you made some really good posts.

I think that the questions are entirely empty. They are completely devoid of any political context, and seem to see workers revolution like some kind of guerrilla war. I don't.

Wel this thread is about(at least the heading says) what should the proletariat do during wars ?(which itself is really stupid considering people sit and theoretically discuss during wars) after some abstract theoretical arguments gilhyle posted some practical questions. Instead of arguing it you accuse for fetishing violence.

Herman

8th March 2007, 17:15

Any national struggle which aims to liberate the proletariat from the power of capital both form the inside and the outside is alright. There is no problem if Ireland seeks to become independent from Capitalist Britain.

As long as the new republic decides to become socialist and the workers become the new ruling class, then it's fine.

Entrails Konfetti

8th March 2007, 21:36

I agree with Devrimankara, violence shouldn't be glorified, and I don't agree with this centralized guerilla warfare method, which can't possibly encompass the working-class.
I think there are too many blood thirsty maniacs on revleft.

Violence MAY BE necessary depending where you are. No I'm not a pacifist, and I don't believe in parlimentary struggle-- but we should try to push for a peaceful revolution, violence should only be waged in self-defence.

As for the national question, no one has changed my mind-- I still think uniteing with the nationalists is impossible, therefore national-liberation is aswell impossible.
Theres no sense in taking a nationalist stance, unless you really don't give a shit about the workers of the world.

PRC-UTE

9th March 2007, 00:27

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 08, 2007 09:36 pm
I agree with Devrimankara, violence shouldn't be glorified, and I don't agree with this centralized guerilla warfare method, which can't possibly encompass the working-class.
I think there are too many blood thirsty maniacs on revleft.

Violence MAY BE necessary depending where you are. No I'm not a pacifist, and I don't believe in parlimentary struggle-- but we should try to push for a peaceful revolution, violence should only be waged in self-defence.

As for the national question, no one has changed my mind-- I still think uniteing with the nationalists is impossible, therefore national-liberation is aswell impossible.
Theres no sense in taking a nationalist stance, unless you really don't give a shit about the workers of the world.
I have no hang up about violence and if you sift through gilhyle's posts you'll see few that refer to violence at all. The majority of his posts are imo very solid ones about Marxist theory. Look through mine and you'll find that I've posted plenty of times about workers issues and am not all that interested in guerilla war, etc but the struggle of the masses.

Personally I don't see any sort of armed campaign as feasible in Ireland anytime soon and I have no interest in seeing more violence. I've seen quite a bit in my life.

While his statement about a fetish for violence at revleft may be generally true, I dont see how it applies here. I'm currently involved in several campaigns, in my community and including organising at the point of production.

You've kept up with the same theme about uniting with the bourgeoisie and all that, which frankly is just obfusication. We're not uniting with the irish capitalists who've tried to wipe us out and we have strong connections with a lot of other workers organisations in other countries, so you're just flat out wrong.

gilhyle

9th March 2007, 18:54

I posted the somewhat graphic example I did because of my interest in the quote from El Kablamo which I put with it. To my mind El Kablamo made a reasonable point about a graphic situation where violence was involved and I attempted to push that forward to a conclusion.

Unfortunately the discussion has diverted, where I had actually hoped to bring it to a head.

As to to the fetishisation of violence, I share the conclusion Engels drew in the late 19 century based on the development of military science - even at that time - namely that the seizure of the State in the face of a hostile and loyal army is impossible. Thus revolution may no longer be imagined as it would have been by August Blanqui as a coup d'etat - though it is evident from the unfolding of the Paris Commune that even Blanqui's followers moved away from that position, which in 1870 was held only by Jacobins. Latin American guerrilla warfare, Northern Ireland Guerrilla warfare, Vietnam and Afghanistan/Iraq require some qualification of that conclusion but none of them justify rejecting it.

But we are speaking here about war - specifically about the life and death violence imposed by an invading imperialist army which can undermine all union and communal organisation and thus undermine all basis for social organisation for political goals (at least in the short term).

The point I was trying to bring to the centre of this debate was that war can be a powerful argument for cementing alliances which under less extreme conditions would not be countenanced. This is the issue we had got to.

El Kablamo had indicated that there are situations where defense against agression requires certain short term expediants which would not amount to a preferred strategy, but hich would amount (I put words in his mouth here and invite him to correct me if my paraphrase is wrong) to a short term tactic to remedy an environment in which independent organisation of the working class in not practical and which requires self defence instead.

If that is his view I would like to get a little bit of clarity about it (hence my example). If not, I would like to understand that. For that reason I would like to take it as read for the purposes of this thread that guerrillaism is not the be all and end all of revolutionary politics (far from it), and focus again on where we had got to. Is that fair ?

Entrails Konfetti

11th March 2007, 08:06

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+--> (PRC-UTE)You've kept up with the same theme about uniting with the bourgeoisie and all that, which frankly is just obfusication.[/b]
Uniting with the national-bourgeoisie was originally one of the main ideas, now it can't happen and doesn't happen. Theres no need to take up an "us and them" mentallity toward nationalities.

gihyle
Latin American guerrilla warfare, Northern Ireland Guerrilla warfare, Vietnam and Afghanistan/Iraq require some qualification of that conclusion but none of them justify rejecting it.
The tactics could work, but there whole idea of guerilla bands instead of militia units formed around work-places to hold off aggressors is a total crap idea.

The point I was trying to bring to the centre of this debate was that war can be a powerful argument for cementing alliances which under less extreme conditions would not be countenanced. This is the issue we had got to.

You were asking me hypothetical questions that were not based on reallity since the whole core to the national question is forming alliances with the National Bourgeoisie and that doesn't happen anyways. The questions reaked of the idea that a highly centralized guerilla band should lead the workers to revolution, and I don't agree with that at all.

El Kablamo had indicated that there are situations where defense against agression requires certain short term expediants which would not amount to a preferred strategy, but hich would amount (I put words in his mouth here and invite him to correct me if my paraphrase is wrong) to a short term tactic to remedy an environment in which independent organisation of the working class in not practical and which requires self defence instead.

Your phrasing confuses me.
You mean to tell me you have strategies drawn up already before pockets of social upheval have spread farther? :lol:

Independant organization of the working-class would be the core of the revolution, workers-councils, syndicates, soviets are all natural organizations of the working-class-- guerilla bands on the other hand, are launched, and once it assumes power everthing outside of the band is subbordinate to it.

Violence as a short-term tactic? Look, revolution can't be fabricated by a small group of people who advocated violence from the beginning when the workers went on strike. The workers gravitate toward violence when their demonstrations are suppressed violently by the state. What does this mean once the state sends in the National Guard? It means they will not try to accomodate the workers demands; It means that the state will trample all over them; It means that the state has violated the workers collective interests of a peaceful and civil society; finally it means that the workers are pressed towards violence-- either they fight for something better or the live under the drudgery of barbarism.

RNK

11th March 2007, 08:21

But isn't that already the case? Nobody wakes up one morning and decides they're going to pursue violence for no real reason. Comrades that advocate violence are doing so because they HAVE been pushed towards it by the reality of what is going on around them. Personally, I think it's folly to adopt the notion that self-defense should be the only form of violence we partake in. If anything, it will lead the bourgeois to adopt a strategy of passive aggression, whereby they manipulate and control the workers through subversive and non-violent means, relying on the fact that worker's uprisings are inherently "defensive" in nature (which they shouldn't be). We can't sit around and wait for the National Guard to invade our factories with tanks. What we need is a Party with a clear conscience who will be capable of preparing and arming the masses for offensive measures.

Afterall, tanks may not be invading your particular neighbourhood, but they sure as hell are invading the neighbourhoods of workers and poor in other parts of the world -- and are we not all one and the same? When the bourgeois attacks one of us, don't we all rise to meet that attacker wherever it may be?

gilhyle

12th March 2007, 01:03

My hypothetical question has unfortunately sent this thread off topic. :( To suggest that "The questions reaked of the idea that a highly centralized guerilla band should lead the workers to revolution" is just factually wrong. It 'reaked' of no such thing. But if you want to dodge the topic, so be it.

Entrails Konfetti

12th March 2007, 02:50

Originally posted by Ernest+--> (Ernest) Comrades that advocate violence are doing so because they HAVE been pushed towards it by the reality of what is going on around them. Personally, I think it's folly to adopt the notion that self-defense should be the only form of violence we partake in.[/b]

Violence comes on the scene because of self-defence.

If anything, it will lead the bourgeois to adopt a strategy of passive aggression, whereby they manipulate and control the workers through subversive and non-violent means, relying on the fact that worker's uprisings are inherently "defensive" in nature (which they shouldn't be).

They've already attatcked strking workers, and workers occupying their work-places. It would already be too late for the bourgeoisie to rely on non-violence.
On the one hand you agree that no one wakes up one day and advocates violence, then on the other you say revolution shouldn't be waged in defence (when historically it has). The apolitical worker can't become radicalized if there hasn't been any events to push them that way. To suppose that revolution is waged as an offensive means that workers start the smallest strike with guns, and that spreads into armed sympathy strikes across the continent, and that just doesn't happen.

We can't sit around and wait for the National Guard to invade our factories with tanks. What we need is a Party with a clear conscience who will be capable of preparing and arming the masses for offensive measures.

I don't see the point of a party with a militaristic wing putting the workers through boot camp feasable or even necessary. For one thing, there are probably a few Leftists in the work-places that hire huge bodies of people, these leftists became who they are because such a country on the brink of upheval would drive them that way, another thing is that there are still revolutionary unions like the IWW and CNT still in place, and if the spaghetti hits the fan they will go toward them, or get their assistance to organize. Also, there are always workers who served in the millitary.

To take the offence means to invade-- to force your way into another region. If workers of the other regions want the revolution they will fend off attackers, they will have occupied their workplaces and government buildings. I really wouldn't worry about trying to take out millitary instalations so much, historically the military goes on the side of the workers, because they really don't want to kill their own friends and family, another thing, is that it would be stupid for the bourgeois to use super-weapons on the proletariat since this would destroy their work-force.

Also, about your statement is that suggests you advocate democratic-centralism, and a party of intellectuals-- well, your concept of a workers revolution must be different from mine.

gilhyle
My hypothetical question has unfortunately sent this thread off topic. To suggest that "The questions reaked of the idea that a highly centralized guerilla band should lead the workers to revolution" is just factually wrong. It 'reaked' of no such thing. But if you want to dodge the topic, so be it.

"I have a rusty carbine and going to make an ambush", and the refferences to the guerilla war in Vietnam, and how the guerilla band is still a viable strategy lead me to thinkof such advocacy. But your refferences show that your concept of a workers revolution is different from mine. Nothing else needs to be further discussed.

gilhyle

13th March 2007, 01:33

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 12, 2007 01:50 am
your refferences show that your concept of a workers revolution is different from mine. Nothing else needs to be further discussed.
My point is that, on the contrary, our coneptions of revolution are quite similar, but you have portrayed our views of contrary in a manner which means that your own point on the legitimacy of self-defence need not be worked out.

The question remains : in a situation where it is legiitimate for socialists to engage in organised self-defence do they cooperate with, fight with or ignore nationalists willing to enter into self-defence with them ?

Devrim

13th March 2007, 12:36

Originally posted by gilhyle+March 13, 2007 12:33 am--> (gilhyle @ March 13, 2007 12:33 am)
EL [email protected] 12, 2007 01:50 am
your refferences show that your concept of a workers revolution is different from mine. Nothing else needs to be further discussed.
My point is that, on the contrary, our coneptions of revolution are quite similar, but you have portrayed our views of contrary in a manner which means that your own point on the legitimacy of self-defence need not be worked out.

The question remains : in a situation where it is legiitimate for socialists to engage in organised self-defence do they cooperate with, fight with or ignore nationalists willing to enter into self-defence with them ? [/b]
I think that we certainly have different conceptions of revolution. To try to answer your question though:

Even in a revolution many workers will still hold nationalist ideas. I have stood on picket lines with people who have all sorts of ideas ranging from communist to fascist. The point is not their ideology, but the fact that they are struggling as workers. That in a way is the answer. I have no problem with fighting alongside workers with nationalist ideas when the struggle is on a class terrain. I can not imagine any circumstances when we would fight alongside nationalists as nationalists. The important question is not who one would fight alongside, but which struggles communists should be involved in.

Devrim

gilhyle

13th March 2007, 14:39

Thank you for the clear answer. Now we are getting to it !

I've stood on those picket lines too - though I have also argued against guerrillaism with nationalists.

One more step to go in this discussion...does your answer mean that you would refuse to defend an imperialised country against imperialist invasion and would instead argue for the defeat of your own 'bourgeoisie' ?

Devrim

13th March 2007, 16:23

I've stood on those picket lines too - though I have also argued against guerrillaism with nationalists.
So have I actually.

One more step to go in this discussion...does your answer mean that you would refuse to defend an imperialised country against imperialist invasion and would instead argue for the defeat of your own 'bourgeoisie' ?
Yes, it means that we would refuse to join in with any calls for national defence. The interests of the working class are not the interests of the bourgeoise. I think our posts make this quite clear.

Devrim

Vargha Poralli

13th March 2007, 16:55

Yes, it means that we would refuse to join in with any calls for national defence. The interests of the working class are not the interests of the bourgeoise. I think our posts make this quite clear.

No one is saying to rally behind the bourgeoisie. Your answer is pretty much vague in real-life scenario. The bourgeoisie in a Imperialised country will not fight against the Imperialists. They certainly benefit from Imperialism. So it is the task of workers and peasants to fight Imperialism. You are saying that that fight would help the bourgeoisie which IMO is pretty much stupid.

Devrim

13th March 2007, 19:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:55 pm
No one is saying to rally behind the bourgeoisie. Your answer is pretty much vague in real-life scenario. The bourgeoisie in a Imperialised country will not fight against the Imperialists. They certainly benefit from Imperialism. So it is the task of workers and peasants to fight Imperialism. You are saying that that fight would help the bourgeoisie which IMO is pretty much stupid.
I don't think it is in any way vague. We are saying that the working class has no interest in rallying behind the national flag in the name of anti-imperialism. If you read through the thread, our position is clearly explained. You may think that this is stupid. We think that those who advocate that the working class sacrifice itself in the name of the nation are anti-working class.

Devrim

Vargha Poralli

14th March 2007, 10:18

I don't think it is in any way vague. We are saying that the working class has no interest in rallying behind the national flag in the name of anti-imperialism. If you read through the thread, our position is clearly explained. You may think that this is stupid. We think that those who advocate that the working class sacrifice itself in the name of the nation are anti-working class.

I understand your position. But anyway what you are saying may work theoretically but when it comes to practical tactics it doesn't hold much water.For example I live in India if there a Imperial war breaks between Indian and Chinese capitalists(which is totally unlikely to happen it hurts both of them) then what should the workers of India do ? should we say that we wont take part in that war because it is not in our class interest ? if we do that will the Chinese capitalists would give more concessions to Indian Workers and peasants(they can't even do it to their own workers) ? What you are saying is typical ultra left stuff which will not be applicable practically in most cases !!

Devrim

14th March 2007, 11:17

should we say that we wont take part in that war because it is not in our class interest ?

Yes, that is basically it.

What you are saying is typical ultra left stuff which will not be applicable practically in most cases !!

Why would it not be applicable? I sometimes wonder what position all of these leftists who denounce the commnists as 'ultra-left' would had taken had they been there in 1914? Would they have denounced Lenin as 'ultra-left'?

If there were a war between India, and China, it would be an inter-imperialist war that the working class had no interest in.

Devrim

Vargha Poralli

14th March 2007, 11:36

Why would it not be applicable?

Because when a war breaks out there would be no time for any one to sit in a round table conference and discuss theoretically what should be done . The bourgeoisie government would take total control of everything in to their hands and as experience had shown in history it would not hesitate to systematically purge those who are not in agreement with it.I really don't know how to put my thoughts exactly in English but to say simply this whole thread is really stupid in one thing.

I sometimes wonder what position all of these leftists who denounce the commnists as 'ultra-left' would had taken had they been there in 1914?

You are really dishonest in taking again and again the first world war situation. It is really comfortable to sit in present and discuss about the past but to live in those situations is not the same. Vietnam situation, The Current Israel-Palestinian issue and the Iraqi war issues are in no way comparable to WW1. Do you honestly think that if the Vietnamese workers didn't fight the US imperialism US would have gone socialist now ? Don't even talk about Israeli-Palestinian Conflict(focusing only on Hams) and Israel-Lebanon conflict(focus only on Hezbollah).

Would they have denounced Lenin as 'ultra-left'?

Obviously Lenin was in neutral Switzerland at that time while all the radicals who have not supported the war against the Second Internationals decisions were obviously repressed. And February revolution had not happened because of Lenin's Stance(October Revolution did).

If there were a war between India, and China, it would be an inter-imperialist war that the working class had no interest in.

It would not be turned in to Class war without both Workers and Peasants of both the nations revolting against their own bourgeoisie.

Devrim

14th March 2007, 12:04

Originally posted by g.ram
Because when a war breaks out there would be no time for any one to sit in a round table conference and discuss theoretically what should be done . The bourgeoisie government would take total control of everything in to their hands and as experience had shown in history it would not hesitate to systematically purge those who are not in agreement with it.I really don't know how to put my thoughts exactly in English but to say simply this whole thread is really stupid in one thing.

You are right. There would be time to sit around a table, and discuss. There shouldn't be a need to though. We know how real communists behave in times of war. Your argument against the opposing a war here seems to be that it would unleash bourgeois repression, which brings us to the next point:

Obviously Lenin was in neutral Switzerland at that time while all the radicals who have not supported the war against the Second Internationals decisions were obviously repressed. And February revolution had not happened because of Lenin's Stance(October Revolution did).

But, it wasn't only Lenin who opposed the war. Communists in the protagonist nations did too. Are you suggesting that the February revolution, and the Wilhelmshaven revolt, which was one of the starting points of the German revolution, and the end of the war had nothing to do with the previous agitation of communists in Germany, and Russia.

You are really dishonest in taking again and again the first world war situation. It is really comfortable to sit in present and discuss about the past but to live in those situations is not the same. Vietnam situation... Do you honestly think that if the Vietnamese workers didn't fight the US imperialism US would have gone socialist now ?

The Vietnam war was a war between two imperialist blocs, the US one, and the Soviet one. I don't think that we would have socialism in the US today, but I also think that the Vietnamese working class had no interest in dying on behalf of soviet imperialism

The Current Israel-Palestinian issue and the Iraqi war issues are in no way comparable to WW1... Don't even talk about Israeli-Palestinian Conflict(focusing only on Hams) and Israel-Lebanon conflict(focus only on Hezbollah).

We have written extensively on these boards about how nationalism in the Middle East is dragging the working class deeper, and deeper into a quagmire of ethnic, and sectarian violence.

If there were a war between India, and China, it would be an inter-imperialist war that the working class had no interest in.

It would not be turned in to Class war without both Workers and Peasants of both the nations revolting against their own bourgeoisie.

Yes, that is what we argue for as Lenin did in 1914. I am quite interested in which in your view would be the side to support in a Sino-Indian war. I presume it would be India.

The ideology of 'national defence' is the same from Kautsky to contemporary leftism.

Devrim

Vargha Poralli

14th March 2007, 13:54

Are you suggesting that the February revolution,
Have nothing to do really with any radicals at that time. It was a product of continued frustration of workers and peasants and soldiers because of repeated failure of the army at the hands Germans combined with the lot of misery brought to it by the War.

and the Wilhelmshaven revolt, which was one of the starting points of the German revolution, and the end of the war had nothing to do with the previous agitation of communists in Germany, and Russia.

I am not saying that. But the fact is February revolution and the October revolution were successful while the German Revolution failed. And subsequently Germany became a Fascist state. My point is really studying the failure of German Revolution,which IMO is not only because of the backstab by SPD but also because of various Socio-Economic conditions.

The Vietnam war was a war between two imperialist blocs, the US one, and the Soviet one.

Holy Shit. This argument had come from Maoists from before and USSR had never been an Imperialist Nation. Don't embarrass yourself.

the Vietnamese working class had no interest in dying on behalf of soviet imperialism
You have just pissed those who have died during that war. They didn't die for Soviet Imperialism but for their own self determination. North Vietnam received very little material aid from USSR. Most of the time they fought on their own.They thought they were fighting for socialism but unfortuantely the degeneration of USSR had deflected their aims.

We have written extensively on these boards about how nationalism in the Middle East is dragging the working class deeper, and deeper into a quagmire of ethnic, and sectarian violence.

But what is the reason those right wing nationalists were successful in gaining the support of the working class of Middle-East ? I believe you live in Turkey you must know the real situation of Middle East. Of course I am not saying that we must do what they are doing in order to Gain support from people.

Yes, that is what we argue for as Lenin did in 1914.

But that does not apply to all situations. My argument was that.

I am quite interested in which in your view would be the side to support in a Sino-Indian war. I presume it would be India.

You assume too much.I brought that as just an example. First of all the bourgeoisie of both countries will never wage war against each other. Even if they do it will be like they are digging their own grave and they will meet the end as Tsar. In the end the victors will not be Workers of the world or the Capitalists of India and China but capitalists of other countries(obvioulsy they would supply weapons to both sides).

I presume it would be India

Yes you presume. That may/may not be my action. I am not an astrologer like you to even predict my own actions in a purely fictional situation.

gilhyle

21st March 2007, 01:01

There seem to be two possible reasons why one would refuse to join a struggle against imperialist aggression. Firstly one might believe that there is no such thing as imperialism and that it is all just capitalists exploiting workers - thus its a plain class war everywhere, no difference between south London and southern India.

Alternatively, one might believe that it would be desirable, in principle, to fight imperialism, but no way in practise to do it without allying with allies who would use you to attack the workers. this argument would amount to the claim that the Anti Imperialist United Front cant operate. Ther are, this argument would go, no effective tactics for working with nationalists against imperialism with out also giing those nationalist power.

devrimankara talks on the one hand of the war in vietnam as a war between two imperialist blocs, thus at least suggesting a belief in the existence of imperialism - thus something that should, in prinicple, be fought. That suggests an argument closer to the second one.

All the talk of WW1 suggests an argument closer to the first option (i.e. believing its just workers against capitalists everywhere - no issue of imperialism), but I suspect that is just a confusion and the real argument is the tactical one.

Devrim

21st March 2007, 10:13

Gilhyle, the actual position is slightly different. It develops from the work of Luxemburg in the Janus pamphlet.

Basically; imperialism is a world system today. All nations have basically the same imperialist tendencies. The difference is merely one of scale. National liberation struggles have a tendency to become merely episodes in the struggle between different imperialisms. The period of bourgeois revolutions is over.

It ends up sort of between the two positions that you are suggesting.

Holy Shit. This argument had come from Maoists from before and USSR had never been an Imperialist Nation. Don't embarrass yourself.

G.ram, it is the same argument that our current used when it opposed the Second Imperialist War, before the term Maoism had even been termed. Argue against our position all you like, but please don't confuse it with Maoism. It is very different.

Devrim

gilhyle

21st March 2007, 20:23

Devram

If you dont mind I'll resist the reference to Luxemburg cos talking about her gets us into discussing her flawed political economy and whether she believed in imperialism. I'd rather talk about the substance of the point.

I dont see how your position can lie between the two positions I outlined - you either believe in the oppression of nations as a politically significant fact, or you dont - you also either believe in imperialism or you dont. If you think the domination of some nationalist bourgeois strata over others is not of any political significance, then you don't abide by the concept of imperialism.

WHat puzzles me is

1. You talk about the Vietnam war as a war between imperialist blocs - thus suggesting a belief in imperialism and

2. you talk about alliances between different forces on the picket line, so you believe in united front tactics in some circumstances.

But you deny the relevance of the united front tactic to the fight against imperialism - but it has to be either because you dont want to fight imperialism per se or because you refuse to extend the united front tactic to bourgeois/petit bourgeois forces.

Devrim

21st March 2007, 23:59

Gilhyle,
I feel that you are trying to be honest, and straight forward with us so I will do the same with you. I think that when you talk about imperialism you are imposing on the discussion your definition of imperialism. We too have a theory of imperialism. However, it is very different from yours. I will try to be clear about what we say using your terms, and hope that you still accept the validity of us talking about different imperialist blocs.

So to try to summarise:

1)
you either believe in the oppression of nations as a politically significant fact, or you dont - you also either believe in imperialism or you dont. If you think the domination of some nationalist bourgeois strata over others is not of any political significance, then you don't abide by the concept of imperialism.
As I said before we have a different concept of imperialism, but if I am to take it from your definition of imperialism. I would say that no we don't think that this is of particular political significance. Of course it has an important influence on political events, but we do not see that the working class can benefit from aligning itself with different factions of the bourgeoisie.

2)
2. you talk about alliances between different forces on the picket line, so you believe in united front tactics in some circumstances.
Here I think that our very different conceptions come to light. You see in as an alliance of 'different forces'. We see it as workers fighting for their own class interest. Communists support the working class whenever they are fighting for their class interests. You seem to see it as some sort of political faction war. We see it as a class war.

But you deny the relevance of the united front tactic to the fight against imperialism - but it has to be either because you dont want to fight imperialism per se or because you refuse to extend the united front tactic to bourgeois/petit bourgeois forces.

We are against all frontism. I think that it comes from looking at things from a class perspective. I am not sure of your personal political persuasion. I get the vague idea that you are some sort of Trotskyist. We don't see much of a difference between the 'popular front', and the Trotskyist 'united front'. They are both cross class alliances. Fighting imperialism (as we understand it), means fighting capital. The period of bourgeois revolution is dead. there can be no more cross class alliances.

Devrim

Vargha Poralli

22nd March 2007, 18:10

Originally posted by devrim+--> (devrim)G.ram, it is the same argument that our current used when it opposed the Second Imperialist War, before the term Maoism had even been termed. Argue against our position all you like, but please don't confuse it with Maoism. It is very different.[/b]

Would you give any sources I would appreciate that.

Maoists also claim that when they went around breaking CP's during the Sino-Soviet Split. As a former Maoist I had their idea of Soviet Imperialism which really a petty rhetoric just because the bureaucrats had some misundertsanding between themselves.

Originally posted by [email protected]
As I said before we have a different concept of imperialism, but if I am to take it from your definition of imperialism. I would say that no we don't think that this is of particular political significance. Of course it has an important influence on political events, but we do not see that the working class can benefit from aligning itself with different factions of the bourgeoisie.

Neither Lenin nor Trotsky advocated any sort of alliance with any sort with the bourgeoisie of any types. That is a fact which differentiated them from Mensheviks and from Stalin.

devrim
We don't see much of a difference between the 'popular front', and the Trotskyist 'united front'.

Wrong.

Trotsky advocated the United Front after he analysed the material conditions which had lead to the popularity of Fascism so he advocated "United Front" with Social-Democrats to fight it. Stalin took ultra left position which helped not the working class but Hitler. United front was a tactic.

Popular front is alliance with bourgeoisie politicians and supporting and taking part in the governments.There is a difference between the two.The former called for collaboration with social democrats to fight the rise of Fascism while the Latter subordinated the CP's and the working class to the Capitalists.

Fighting imperialism (as we understand it), means fighting capital. The period of bourgeois revolution is dead. there can be no more cross class alliances.

It is the same thing propagated by both Lenin and Trotsky.That is the reason they called for the October revolution.And that is the reason the Comintern supported the right for liberation of the colonial countries.

Subordinating the workers in alliance with "National Bourgeoisie" is purely Stalinist & Maoist twist.

Leo

22nd March 2007, 18:19

Neither Lenin nor Trotsky advocated any sort of alliance with any sort with the bourgeoisie of any types.

Trotsky advocated joining Social Democratic parties. I think you are an IMTer so I would be guessing that so would your organization actually.

Vargha Poralli

22nd March 2007, 18:37

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 22, 2007 10:49 pm

Neither Lenin nor Trotsky advocated any sort of alliance with any sort with the bourgeoisie of any types.

Trotsky advocated joining Social Democratic parties. I think you are an IMTer so I would be guessing that so would your organization actually.
You are too quick to judge isn't it.

No I am not an IMTer I live in India there are no Trotskyist groups here. I had been a member of CPI(M) which is a Stalinist one i left it because they are hypocrites.

gilhyle

22nd March 2007, 20:33

On two points.

The idea that the era of bourgeois revolutions is over is a significant one.....but I think wrong in this sense: national bourgeoisie's in imperialised countries still have land reform, national independence and the establishment of equality before the law and representative democracy on their agendas. In fighting for those goals they are frustrated by comprador strata within their own class far more powerfull than the mercantalist strata that sided with the Absolutist State in the classical period of the development of capitalism in Europe. It is my view that as much as the main imperialist powers might want it otherwise (or more likely some of their major corporations) the bourgeoisie of the imperialist countries have been unable to transcend their respective national bases. Capitalism remains national in character, although it attempts (particularly at the moment) to supercede that limitation. By the same token as certain national bourgeois classes sustain themselves by the development of international systems of production and commerce, they also suppress other national bourgeois classess, who either adapt or resist. Because the development of the norms of bourgeois democracy is critical for the building of the labour movement it is in the interests of the working class to ally with those members of the natioanlist bourgeoisie who fight for independence and democracy in their countries.

How is that alliance to be pursued without compromising the workers parties ? The critical idea is in the idea of unconditional but critical support for nationalist liberation struggles - without surrendering organisational independence, in other words tactical alliances.

The hardest test of this is war. Devrim and others have outlined an alternative view .... if with a sense of fatalism that there is no basis for debate here but just alternative, irreconcilable views. In that regard he might be right. The practical political consequences of believing that imperialism doesnt oppress national minorities in ways that place bourgeois revolutionary tasks on the agenda - and of believing that that there can be no alliances with non-worker forces on a tactical basis - is to isolate oneself from class struggle in a way that leaves no practical path to success open.

Am I some sort of Trotskyist....welll on this issue I take my cue from the first serious political work I ever read - Left Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder - and from that I take it that we must always find a way forward from where we are, we must never think the protection of our purity justifies not being out there building alliances in real struggles, however imperfect. The real struggles in the imperialised world , more often than not, are the struggles against imperialism. If capitalism has a weak point, those struggles are still probably it. And I can't help thinking that Devrim's perspective leaves him/her standing to the side of the bulk of real struggles and looking instead for 'workerist' fora in which to just build a party....and bulding a party was never the point for me (though I have spent years doing it !).

Leo

22nd March 2007, 20:36

You are too quick to judge isn't it.

No I am not an IMTer I live in India there are no Trotskyist groups here. I had been a member of CPI(M) which is a Stalinist one i left it because they are hypocrites.

Oh really? Oh well, alright then, sorry. No, I wasn't judging, I had just thought I saw the link in your profile and that they had a section in India, but I guess it was something else. I know that there are some left communist comrades in India...

Devrim

23rd March 2007, 14:02

Originally posted by gilhyle
and of believing that that there can be no alliances with non-worker forces on a tactical basis - is to isolate oneself from class struggle in a way that leaves no practical path to success open.
I don't think that it isolates us from class struggle. We don't have any problem with being in workers struggles with anybody when they are for class demands. Rather it isolates us from 'leftism'. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.

we must always find a way forward from where we are, we must never think the protection of our purity justifies not being out there building alliances in real struggles, however imperfect. The real struggles in the imperialised world , more often than not, are the struggles against imperialism.

Yes, here you are right. It does isolate us from some struggles. Just because workers are invovled in some struggles doesn't give them a class nature though. There are some struggles, which have some sort of mass character, which leftists feel that they must be involved in 'because it is where the class is'. There are times when we have to stand apart from these struggles, and try to explain to workers why they are not in the interests of their class.

And I can't help thinking that Devrim's perspective leaves him/her standing to the side of the bulk of real struggles and looking instead for 'workerist' fora in which to just build a party....and bulding a party was never the point for me (though I have spent years doing it !).

As I wrote above, I don't think this is the case. There are workers struggles in Turkey, and the rest of the Middle East. That is where we put our energies. We will leave organising cycle rides against nuclear weapons and similar activities to the Trotskyists.

Oh by the way, it is 'him'.

Devrim