'Insurrection' begins on English Soil

[Forward Union]

So a couple of months ago a bomb went off in cornwall apparently marking the start of an insurrection for Cornish Independance from Britain. Here are a couple of links. What do people think??

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2102569,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNLA

[IronColumn]

Nationalist gangsters that have nothing to do with the working class struggle.

[RedAnarchist]

There doesn't seem to be much information about them apart from in news articles. Also, they don't seem to have any political goals.

[Dr Mindbender]

anything which brings down the anglo-centric hegemony gets my support.

I have a theory that UK socialism will be expediated through the break down of beourgiouse influence, specifically the English beourgiouse.

[Rhino Thunder Pants]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:32 am
they don't seem to have any political goals.
If they do have any political goals the media are hardly going to show them, they are trying to mkae them out to be mindless monsters who just will do anything for carnage.


I don't agree with the violence though in england at this time its the worst thing that can be down in the name of socialism or any left wing politcal stance.

[spartan]

good luck to my celtic cornish brothers and sisters its about time they are recognized as separate from the english just like the other celtic peoples the bretons,irish, manx,scottish and welsh i dont think they should get independence mind you maybe recogniion as a separate member of the uk with its own assembly/parliament just like scotland and my beloved cymru.

[Rhino Thunder Pants]

Why don't you think they should have independence.

[spartan]

because it would make uniting the proletarian in a revolution that much more difficult if there were three nations (cornwall,republic of ireland and uk) of people to unite. especially if they have differing intrests which different nations and its peoples often do.

[Rhino Thunder Pants]

Thank you

[which doctor]

A bomb going off is hardly an insurrection of any sort.

[Forward Union]

Nationalist gangsters that have nothing to do with the working class struggle.

Perhaps.

Though we don't quite know yet do we? I mean, at the base of it, socialism is about decentralised, local autonomy and self determination. So depending on the goals of the CNLA, they could well be revolutionary leftists, though probably not. They are probably a mixture of politics, including far-left elements. I would quote from 'The Anarchist FAQ' to sum up my position on this;

"Anarchists do not elevate the idea of national liberation into a mindless article of faith, as much of the Leninist-influenced left has done this century, calling for support for the oppressed nation without first inquiring into "what kind of society a given 'national liberation' movement would likely produce." -
Though it's likely they are not. It's equally likely that it will never matter, as they will probably soon fade out of the media and be forgotten.

But the idea of a group of people threatening the British state with war on it's own soil somewhat amuses me. And regardless of their politics I'm interested to see what happens, as a sort of experiment.


because it would make uniting the proletarian in a revolution that much more difficult if there were three nations (cornwall,republic of ireland and uk)

They are not mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible, that the goals of a 'national liberation movement' could be to create free workplace and community soviets, to destroy the local and foreign bourgeoisie and create an autonomous 'free zone', and continue pressuring to localities to follow suit. Of course, It could also be the opposite, groups such as Hezbollah for example work to the detriment of the revolutionary left and the working class.

What do you think of the text that I have quoted in this response?

[Leo]

Nationalist gangsters that have nothing to do with the working class struggle.

Exactly.

Besides I think it is really sad that there is even a thread on something as ridiculous as "Cornish independence" and that there isn't even one thread about the postal workers struggle in England.


"Anarchists do not elevate the idea of national liberation into a mindless article of faith, as much of the Leninist-influenced left has done this century, calling for support for the oppressed nation without first inquiring into "what kind of society a given 'national liberation' movement would likely produce." -

So national liberation movements should be supported only when they can create decentralized socialism in one local region? This is, if I am not mistaken, the right-wing anarchist line, a disgrace to anarchism.

"Anarchism is not a beautiful utopia,
nor an abstract philosophical idea,
it is a social movement of the labouring masses"
–- Dyelo Truda Group

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 21, 2007 08:22 am
I think it is really sad that there is even a thread on something as ridiculous as "Cornish independence" and that there isn't even one thread about the postal workers struggle in England.

That actually is fucking diabolical.


So national liberation movements should be supported only when they can create decentralized socialism in one local region?

Of course, Im not going to support a national liberation movement that works cross-class to create a new 'indegeanous' state or ruling class. Anarchists must "refuse to participate in national liberation fronts; they must participate in class fronts which may or may not be involved in national liberation struggles. The struggle must spread to establish economic, political and social structures in the liberated territories, based on federalist and libertarian organisations." [Alfredo M. Bonanno, Anarchism and the National Liberation Struggle, p. 12]

Do you not agree?


This is, if I am not mistaken, the right-wing anarchist line, a disgrace to anarchism.

Well in that case then Im a right-wing anarchist, whatever that means.

[Leo]

Of course, Im not going to support a national liberation movement that works cross-class to create a new 'indegeanous' state or ruling class.

Well, then you are not going to support a national liberation movement, period. All try to create a new state and all are lead by a faction of the ruling class.

There can't be a national liberation movement which doesn't try to create a new state and which isn't lead by a faction of the ruling class.


Anarchists must "refuse to participate in national liberation fronts; they must participate in class fronts which may or may not be involved in national liberation struggles. The struggle must spread to establish economic, political and social structures in the liberated territories, based on federalist and libertarian organisations." [Alfredo M. Bonanno, Anarchism and the National Liberation Struggle, p. 12]

Do you not agree?

For the first part, actual communists and revolutionary anarchists should only participate in class struggle and should never participate in any national struggle, period. Whether the workers involved in the struggle are national liberationists, liberals, conservatives, Stalinists, social democrats, fascists or whatever is not important - we discuss with all of them, we tell that they are wrong and we can do this because it is our terrain, the class terrain. So, the first part is acceptable, although I don't like all the terminology.

As for the second part... I don't agree with it - it is basically a "libertarian" version of saying that "socialism (or anarchism) in one country (or territory)" is possible. I think Bonanno should read that book Dispossessed, which marvelously explains that anarchism is not possible in the moon of a singe planet!


Well in that case then Im a right-wing anarchist, whatever that means.

It means NEFAC, WSM etc.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 21, 2007 09:12 am
Well, then you are not going to support a national liberation movement, period. All try to create a new state and all are lead by a faction of the ruling class.

Not at all. Nation. and Nation-state are two different things. A struggle could be for the nation, but not for a nation state.

A nation, is "A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality"

A Nation-State "A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: "(from Dictionary.com)

As an anarchist, I struggle for the liberation of the working class, and not the abstract "nation" a nation can be free in political terms but it's workforce can be subject to an authorotarian programe, and so the freedom and self determination of a nation is meaningless.

However, on another level a nation is a bit of land with people living on it, a community. And I argue for the liberation of the community, for the autonomy of that people from the state and the ruling class. So if a group of people strugle against the centeralised power of the state and bussiness, for their own autonomy in the given region in which they live. Im inclined to support them. And yet, I have described what could be a national liberation struggle.

This does not mean that I think the revolution should stagnate after victory in a given region. The zapatistas have learnt that lesson, it has to be on going.


For the first part, actual communists and revolutionary anarchists should only participate in class struggle and should never participate in any national struggle, period. Whether the workers involved in the struggle are national liberationists, liberals, conservatives, Stalinists, social democrats, fascists or whatever is not important - we discuss with all of them, we tell that they are wrong and we can do this because it is our terrain, the class terrain. So, the first part is acceptable, although I don't like all the terminology.

So perhaps our differenciation is semantic? I mean, we were arguing along the same lines in the Lebanon debate.


It means NEFAC, WSM etc.

Then without a doubt I am Right-wing.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 20, 2007 10:04 pm
So a couple of months ago a bomb went off in cornwall apparently marking the start of an insurrection for Cornish Independance from Britain. Here are a couple of links. What do people think??

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2102569,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNLA
This is not national liberation. You need to be an oppressed group to need liberation.

And the rest of britain subsidises the whole of the west country. Its a very poor part of europe, in part, because the youth reject the backwardness of those parts.

Still, they realise that cornwall is poor, they just blame 'the english' and not the actual reasons.

all in all, petty nationalism inside a core imperialist country is quite a laugh. It might catch on, i could be commander of the Surrey Liberation Army. :lol:

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 10:27 am
This is not national liberation. You need to be an oppressed group to need liberation.

The working class of cornwall are just as opressed as the working class of any other part of the west. They don't have local autonomy and self-determination, so they are opressed.


Still, they realise that cornwall is poor, they just blame 'the english' and not the actual reasons.

Well, granted, blaming the English for the failings of capialism is an absurd analysis. But we don' really know what their analysis is.

I'm more interested to see how our state reacts, than the particular goals and/or sucesses of the CNLA.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

there isn't even one thread about the postal workers struggle in England.

What's this? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=68161)

Surprisingly enough, it's in "Worker Actions".

[IronColumn]

It seems to be a common dichotomy between people who outright reject the term of national liberation, based on the bankrupt history of all these movements, and some anarchists who still use the term but claim they would only support a 'libertarian' national liberation. In my view, this seems to be an inability on the part of some anarchists to abandon a term most famously used by Lenin (self-determination!). I would also note that occasionally the latter position, as espoused by some members in NEFAC and other groups, has led them to some pretty convoluted and backwards positions.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I think this Cornish National-liberation movement should dress-up like pirates, that way they will influence a Tampa Bay National-libneration movement. You see, every year in about November Tampa Bay has a festival called "Gasparilla" where local business people dress-up like pirates and throw mardi gras beads at women exposing their mamorie glands, and cute toddlers. Tampa Bay will break from the state of Florida in the name of the Gasparilla Liberation Movement!

Pirate National-Liberation!

[Leo]

What's this?

Surprisingly enough, it's in "Worker Actions".

My bad, but the point stands still. There are far more threads and discussions on various nationalist groups than there is about workers' struggles. There are 52 topics and 179 in the Workers' Actions forum. You figure.


Then without a doubt I am Right-wing.

Then I'll say you need to talk to this group called Organize! in Ireland. I hear it's the best anarchist group in the UK.


Not at all. Nation and Nation-state are two different things. A struggle could be for the nation, but not for a nation state.

Well no not really, but it can appear to be so. Regardless, it is a struggle that is necessarily against the interests of the working class as independence from the bourgeoisie is in the interests of the working class, and it is in the interests of the bourgeoisie because it is lines up workers behind itself.


I struggle for the liberation of the working class, and not the abstract "nation"

Good.


a nation can be free in political terms

What does that mean?


However, on another level a nation is a bit of land with people living on it, a community. And I argue for the liberation of the community, for the autonomy of that people from the state and the ruling class. So if a group of people strugle against the centeralised power of the state and bussiness, for their own autonomy in the given region in which they live. Im inclined to support them.

Even if it is a movement which this or that part of the ruling class benefits?


The zapatistas have learnt that lesson, it has to be on going.

Zapatistas are nationalists.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 21, 2007 05:27 pm
Then I'll say you need to talk to this group called Organize! in Ireland. I hear it's the best anarchist group in the UK.

Yes I know them well.


What does that mean?

A free nation, for example, the United states (it isn't subjugated or occupied by another nation) and yet it's population are by no means free. In political terms the nation is self-determined, but that doesnt mean the people are.


Even if it is a movement which this or that part of the ruling class benefits?

How would a ruling class benefit from a zone becoming autonomous.

[redflag32]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 01:55 am
because it would make uniting the proletarian in a revolution that much more difficult if there were three nations (cornwall,republic of ireland and uk) of people to unite. especially if they have differing intrests which different nations and its peoples often do.
Do you think north and southern Ireland should be united then?

[Leo]

A free nation, for example, the United states (it isn't subjugated or occupied by another nation) and yet it's population are by no means free.

So it's a meaningless term, right?


In political terms the nation is self-determined, but that doesnt mean the people are.

What is, materially, a nation? A certain population which includes all classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.


How would a ruling class benefit from a zone becoming autonomous.

Because in his autonomous zone, there will be proles and cappies. If it isn't a class based movement, opposing the ruling class with all the antagonisms among it then, it isn't in the interests of the proletariat, it necessarily aids one faction, perhaps a very microscopic faction of the ruling class which for some reason opposes the central authority. The ruling class and the proletariat has no common interests, whether in an autonomous zone or a huge country.

[Cheung Mo]

I wouldn't cry if the Cornish people spilt bourgeois and aristocratic blood...I mean, the English people engaged in a wholesale plunder and destruction of their language and their culture that makes what Beijing is doing in Tibet look like small potatoes.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+August 22, 2007 12:19 am--> (Leo Uilleann @ August 22, 2007 12:19 am) So it's a meaningless term, right?
[/b]
Not meaningless, there is a difference between an oppressed nation state, a nation whose domestic policies are dictated by a foreign government, and a 'free' nation with a self-determined government. I just don't very much care.


What is, materially, a nation? A certain population which includes all classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

Well, if that is your definition of a nation, then I am against any national cause, as it would inevitably be cross-class. But I will expand on this later, as you bring up more relevant points to this in the next paragraph;


Because in his autonomous zone, there will be proles and cappies. If it isn't a class based movement, opposing the ruling class with all the antagonisms among it then, it isn't in the interests of the proletariat, it necessarily aids one faction, perhaps a very microscopic faction of the ruling class which for some reason opposes the central authority. The ruling class and the proletariat has no common interests, whether in an autonomous zone or a huge country.

Allow me to quote principal four of the Anarchist Federation (the organisation I am a member of)


Aims and Principals
4. We are opposed to the ideology of national liberation movements which claims that there is some common interest between native bosses and the working class in face of foreign domination. We do support working class struggles against racism, genocide, ethnocide and political and economic colonialism. We oppose the creation of any new ruling class. We reject all forms of nationalism, as this only serves to redefine divisions in the international working class. The working class has no country and national boundaries must be eliminated. We seek to build an anarchist international to work with other libertarian revolutionaries throughout the world.

That's my bottom line on this matter, one which im sure we both agree on anyway. On the specific issue of Cornish nationalism, as I have already stated, I neither support nor oppose the insurrection, as I have no idea what the political platform of the CNLA is.

But we have moved onto a broader issue of national liberation. Now, the most attainable goal at the moment, for me, is autonomy locally. By locally I mean my workplace, and my community. Of course, that autonomy is useless without the autonomy of everyone, but logically, each must struggle for their own, in a co-ordinated manner. Im not going to struggle in your workplace or vice versa, that's common sense.

So if a group of people are doing a similar thing, attempting to liberate a section of land from a centralised power and run it in their own way, then I could see them as allies. But only if the form of society they wish to create is democratically run by the workers. I suppose are disagreement lies on the issue of whether or not "national" liberation can be for the benefit of the workers in that area. I mean, there were elements of the Irish working class who fought, and still fight against the British to establish a socialist Ireland.

“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 will be in vain. England will still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs”. - James Connolly

[PRC-UTE]

This thread is LOL funny. We find out that those damn Cornish republicans are gansters ( :o ), NEFAC and the WSM are "right wing anarchists" and there are no threads on the UK postal strike!!!

Keep it comin!

[catch]

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 22, 2007 02:49 pm
This thread is LOL funny. We find out that those damn Cornish republicans are gansters ( :o ), NEFAC and the WSM are "right wing anarchists" and there are no threads on the UK postal strike!!!

Keep it comin!
Cornish nationalists making bombs - as far as I'm concerned they're about the same as the English nationalists arrested on explosives charges a year or so ago.

No threads on the UK postal strike - well there's one, with 11 posts on it. Whoop-de-do. Wildcats across Scotland and the North of England, the potential for a widening into much of the public sector and echoes in some private sector strikes and it gets 11 posts. I think that shows the priorities of many of the posters on here.

As to NEFAC and the WSM - well I think "right wing anarchists" is the wrong term - too easy to confuse them with American libertarians and individualists. But a lot of their positions are straight outta Social Democracy, so I can see where Leo gets it from, especially if in Turkey he hasn't had to deal with the individualist crap that NEFAC especially are a response to.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by catch+August 22, 2007 03:38 pm--> (catch @ August 22, 2007 03:38 pm)
PRC-[email protected] 22, 2007 02:49 pm
This thread is LOL funny. We find out that those damn Cornish republicans are gansters ( :o ), NEFAC and the WSM are "right wing anarchists" and there are no threads on the UK postal strike!!!

Keep it comin!
Cornish nationalists making bombs - as far as I'm concerned they're about the same as the English nationalists arrested on explosives charges a year or so ago.
[/b]
Wasn't arguing the merits of Cornish nationalists, not really interested in the subject much, and I don't see it really mattering one way or the other to the workers movement. Just think it's funny to call a group 'gangsters' when it seems there's so little known of them. It's just a static and idealist way to approach an analysis, but I guess it saves time from actually investigating a subject.

However saying 'they're about the same' as the BNP terrorists who stockpiled chemical weapons to incite a racial civil war is pretty odd.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 03:38 pm
No threads on the UK postal strike - well there's one, with 11 posts on it. Whoop-de-do. Wildcats across Scotland and the North of England, the potential for a widening into much of the public sector and echoes in some private sector strikes and it gets 11 posts. I think that shows the priorities of many of the posters on here.


Point is, rather than whine about their not being a thread on the postal strike, he could go post in it instead of adding posts to, and thus promoting what he sees as so wrong with this site (the discussion on cornish nationalists).


As to NEFAC and the WSM - well I think "right wing anarchists" is the wrong term - too easy to confuse them with American libertarians and individualists. But a lot of their positions are straight outta Social Democracy, so I can see where Leo gets it from, especially if in Turkey he hasn't had to deal with the individualist crap that NEFAC especially are a response to.

Interesting. Would you mind elaborating further on what positions are Social Democracy?

[catch]

In terms of Social Democracy.

Well the WSM recently passed a conference motion demanding that Ireland's oil and gas be nationalised.

I'd say both the WSM's and NEFAC's positions on the unions and national liberation have a lot of influence from social democracy as well - that shit goes right the way back to Kautsky etc. WSM supported a union leadership candidate a while back, NEFAC has a few union organisers around it. I think they're both fairly inconsistent on the unions and nationalism, which puts (some of) them to the right of, well, me for a start.

[Philosophical Materialist]

I am not sure how Cornish independence would benefit socialism or liberate anyone. Dividing the Cornish working class form the rest of England and Britain sounds pretty absurd. A British-wide and European-wide workers' snuggle and revolt would likely bring more results.

I am very sceptical of what is meant by "Cornish independence". Setting-up an impoverished bourgeois state in the West Country sounds like something that could only be instigated by petty-nationalists.

[redarmyfaction38]

cornish nationalism! a supposed bomb attack!
funnily enough, i live in plymouth, right next to the "border", not a word about it!
however, if you really want to discuss "wars of national liberation", "individual terrorism" and the role of the proletariat; let's do it.
if you want to discuss the postal workers struggle lets do it.
all these ideas and struggles are important, lets not hide them away in "ideological" back biting, but start threads on their relevance and influence on the struggle for a new society.
again just my opinion.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham+August 21, 2007 10:27 am--> (bloody_capitalist_sham @ August 21, 2007 10:27 am)
Urban [email protected] 20, 2007 10:04 pm
So a couple of months ago a bomb went off in cornwall apparently marking the start of an insurrection for Cornish Independance from Britain. Here are a couple of links. What do people think??

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2102569,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNLA
This is not national liberation. You need to be an oppressed group to need liberation.

And the rest of britain subsidises the whole of the west country. Its a very poor part of europe, in part, because the youth reject the backwardness of those parts.

Still, they realise that cornwall is poor, they just blame 'the english' and not the actual reasons.

all in all, petty nationalism inside a core imperialist country is quite a laugh. It might catch on, i could be commander of the Surrey Liberation Army. :lol: [/b]
surrey is in the heartland of anglo saxon england. A long time ago, When the saxons arrived, they pushed the celts out to the extremities of the island to be excluded such as cornwall, wales and scotland. In that sense there is a 'ethnic border' starting at the Bristol Estuary and finishing at Berwick upon Tweed. This is why the South east (particulary London) is the financial powerhouse of the UK that it is today.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 26, 2007 02:04 pm
surrey is in the heartland of anglo saxon england. A long time ago, When the saxons arrived, they pushed the celts out to the extremities of the island to be excluded such as cornwall, wales and scotland. In that sense there is a 'ethnic border' starting at the Bristol Estuary and finishing at Berwick upon Tweed. This is why the South east (particulary London) is the financial powerhouse of the UK that it is today.
I don't think ethnic borders are that exact. You need to remember that Anglo-Saxon kingdoms existed in southern Scotland (it is in these from which the Scots Language derives).

Cornish Celtic culture and language continued until practical extinction a number of centuries ago (although there has been limited revivalism). The insurrexions which some Cornish nationalists point to are in the pre-nationalist stage of history towards the end of the Feudal age when feudal states evolved into dynastical-administrative states. There does seem to be a regional Cornish identity, comparable to other regional English identities but it is difficult to identify a Cornish nationalist consciousness outside the minds of a few isolated petty-bourgeois nationalists.

[spartan]

actually in some areas the cornish language was still going strong right until the begining of the twentieth century. i know this because my great grandfather was cornish and he said that when he worked in the tin mines you would only get the job if you could speak cornish which he and all the other miners spoke.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Philosophical Materialist+August 26, 2007 03:31 pm--> (Philosophical Materialist @ August 26, 2007 03:31 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 26, 2007 02:04 pm
surrey is in the heartland of anglo saxon england. A long time ago, When the saxons arrived, they pushed the celts out to the extremities of the island to be excluded such as cornwall, wales and scotland. In that sense there is a 'ethnic border' starting at the Bristol Estuary and finishing at Berwick upon Tweed. This is why the South east (particulary London) is the financial powerhouse of the UK that it is today.
I don't think ethnic borders are that exact. You need to remember that Anglo-Saxon kingdoms existed in southern Scotland (it is in these from which the Scots Language derives). [/b]
You're right, Anglo-Saxons have been in Scotland for some time, since about the same time the Gaels from Ireland established Dal Riada.