Yrwenot3 vs Wayne

91 posts / 0 new
Last post
nuclearcivvy
Offline
Joined: 8-10-04
Oct 27 2004 16:31

It would make them easier to oppose individually, and that could have led to a black republic in the southern US today.

Think it through man. They are globalising, and we're talking about de-centralising.

nuclearcivvy
Offline
Joined: 8-10-04
Oct 27 2004 17:13

John Wesley said: "True change ALWAYS comes from the bottom up."

I gota go to a local meeting of the G8 alternatives group now.

You knock yourself out here. I think it may be serving as some sort of therapy for you. wink

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
Oct 27 2004 20:47
Boulcolonialboy wrote:
nuclearcivvy wrote:
OOK. At least I got you to concede our culture's only semi mythological.

You must also concede that national independence would be an improvement in terms of the class struggle in Scotlands case.

Now; I wonder if you'll accept that all the stereotyping started with yourselves, and was as nationally biased, if not more so, than any of the countering points I've raised.

Do you still advocate the status qou then? confused eek neutral

Concede? I've only just entered this debate. Of course its only semi-mythological and yes much of the stereotyping of people comes from groups outside those being stereotyped. I'm not sure who 'yourselves' are in relation to this tho as being from Belfast we also suffer various stereotypes which I'm afraid some local people seem intent on perpetuating. For example the skinny leprechaun with fists raised and 'fighting Irish' enblazoned underneath.

Would 'national independence' be an improvement in Scotlands case? Maybe for increasing some of the power of local politicos but in terms of class struggle the increased nationalism which would be needed to build the momentum for achieveing national sovereignty can only be seen as divisive and damaging to class struggle.

On this I'd like to ask if you would therefore advocate parliamentary action as a means to advance the class struggle? Its just that that would seem to go hand in hand with the pursuit of 'national independence' and the pursuit of power by a more local elite. This is hardly anarchism is it?

Also would it change the ownership of much of the land in Scotland, would it alter property relations, would it end exploitation? It might mean some people weren't as pissed off as they couldn't blame a load of 'English twats' (read politicians and Ministers) on their problems. It would also foster illusions in the local lot who would end up in 'power'.

But how much power would they really have anyway, given the global nature of capitalism? In reality, no matter what, the same type of system would be administering the same type of attacks on our services, our housing, our jobs, our communities and our lives.

So no I don't see any improvement there in terms of class struggle, the situation didn't improve any for workers in the south when the Free State was set up, it certainly didn't improve in the north, and nor will it improve when/if we get a new devolved administration. All these fuckers implement neo-liberal policies with impunity mate don't be daft enough to swallow this tripe.

'Do you still advocate the status quo', I never have. Obviously I'm a class struggle Anarchist and as such I advocate working class activity and solidarity against capitalism and all states and yeah, ultimatley, social revolution.

Cheers

circle A red n black star

And the above questions are still being ignored in favour of a reaction to revol68's style that has drawn you a bit of cover. And you know it. You have deliberatley chosen to deal (more acuratley not deal) with the posts from revol as his abrasiveness and slagging makes them easier to avoid while you look as if you're dealing with them. You accuse revol and others on this board of not being anarchist while you are deliberately avoiding dealing with issues that might just show up a major gap in your own anarchism. angry

nuclearcivvy
Offline
Joined: 8-10-04
Oct 27 2004 21:13
Boulcolonialboy wrote:

And the above questions are still being ignored in favour of a reaction to revol68's style that has drawn you a bit of cover. And you know it. You have deliberatley chosen to deal (more acuratley not deal) with the posts from revol as his abrasiveness and slagging makes them easier to avoid while you look as if you're dealing with them. You accuse revol and others on this board of not being anarchist while you are deliberately avoiding dealing with issues that might just show up a major gap in your own anarchism. angry

If I haven't answered your questions directly Boulcolonialboy it's because I thought I'd answered your questions while answering revol's.

If you are not happy with the answers I can't help that.

I'd just point to Spain, Georgia and Venezuela again. If they can do it without turning Nazi why can't we? If they can hold the corporate world at bay, why can't we?

What's different about Scotland that we're incapable of the same thing?

I've asked that a few times already, and all I've had in desponse, is doubt, fear, nationalistic insults, and failed dogma masquerading as reasons.

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
Oct 27 2004 22:44

nuclearcivvy there really isn't much point debating this with you at all is there? You haven't addressed or answered any of my points. Don't know what the fuck Nazis have to do with any of this and Spain etc... sorry what is that they have done exactly?

Revol68, I don't go on forums after four pints so I should be ok, but leave it out about the frown lines people might start guessing my age.

Well heres to a generation brought up on the Broons and Oor Willie, I was too funny enough, but didn't try to turn it into a national identitiy (or a language).

BTW were ye aware that in the mid-nineteenth century nearly 10% of Scotlands population was Irish, the vast majority of that coming from Ulster? So that would be one in ten of your pretty fuckin' close descendants being of non-Scottish heritage. So again, colonialism or economic migration and a big mixing pot that 'national' heritages, tradition and a primiordal version of culture write out of history?

Y'know, really its all about class.

nuclearcivvy
Offline
Joined: 8-10-04
Oct 28 2004 04:08
Boulcolonialboy wrote:

1. Would 'national independence' be an improvement in Scotlands case?

2. On this I'd like to ask if you would therefore advocate parliamentary action as a means to advance the class struggle?

3. But how much power would they really have anyway, given the global nature of capitalism?

1. Yes, as in the case of Spain, Georgia and Venezuela.

2. Yes, of the type seen in Spain, Georgia and Venezuela.

3. What a completely defeatist question. Even if they make no difference, they deserve the right to try.

PS. It was alledged earlier there would be a right wing resurgence with all that natiopnalism being stirred up. That's what the nazi reference was aimed at. I'm really sick of this bollocks. You guys need a nanny or interpreter or something.

You don't know the difference between debate and badgering.

Look back over this thread and you'll see I've answered every half thought out putdown so far. I know you can do rational discourse, so why make do with this diatribe. You demean yourselves

AND FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME, I'M NOT AN ANARCHIST.

Can you blame anyone not wanting to be a part of this?

You are pathetic as a group. Arseholes like revol will always spoil your rep, and you'll achieve nothing. That's what you've achieved so far, and what's going to change? Huh? I have anarchist friends, who respect my views and hear me out, precisely because they're not like the dogma that gets regurgitated here.

I'm here because Dissent uses this forum for G8 planning, and I think THAT was a right fucking mistake now.

Are these answers clear enough?

nuclearcivvy
Offline
Joined: 8-10-04
Oct 28 2004 14:16

OK.

1. Spain threw off a right wing globalist/militrist government in favour of a left wing anti-globalist anti-militrist government, throught a broad peoples movement in accordance with PGA hallmarks. Venezuela and Georgia went through similar experiences, giving the people self determination and removing them from the global military/industrial machinery. Oil and armies. That's what we've got here too. This is what I'm on about. why does this baffle you?

2. I could name things and events til the cows come home, but none of them tie everyone together. Those that tie large groups together always have exceptions. Most of these are light in themselves, but share eight or ten with someone, and you'd feel the common bond too. Mrs Shri Pal next door enjoys curling and pipe bands. I don't, but I see how it brings her closer to many in Scotland. She's tasting local culture at her own level. She also shares a love of the Bard. Someone who, almost 300yrs ago, wrote about how we nurse our identity against the oppressor's attempts to remove it from us. He also shows our commonly held internationalist outlook, and that has been exported round the world.

3. You don't seem to understand our identity is commonly held by consent. It's not defined. If it was it would be false. Burns is still among the most popular writers here. Do you know any Burns? You probably would if you were Scots. It's not obligatory though, and not being able to recite "A man's a man for Aw that" doesn't make you a non Scot. Currently, our parliament defines our political voice, but unless we all sat there, it could not define us as a political unit. People have found their identity expressed in many ways here. The Clydesiders, who you referred to ages ago may have defined themselves in terms of the international labour struggle, but THAT was the artificial construct. They were Scots, and none who were Scotts would have argued with that statement. Their deeds help further coalesce us into a group. John Mclean is part of our fokelore. Songs are sung, and nobody up here would deny they are Scots songs, sung for the whole world. Internationalist in outlook, desiring independence from globalist power. That broadly defines our political stance too. (Like Spain, venezuela, Georgia.) Anything more specific would be a playground for you to find the ones it excludes, lump them together, and demand none of us are Scots cos they don't fit

4. I do claim national identity is a fact. If you went round here asking, you'd get some who'd primarily identify with some other state of being. Sure. How many would deny their Scots heritage though? probably less than 1%

That means you exclude 99% of us from your revolution, because we won't discard our identity for you. It's useful to us. We may lay it down willingly some day, but we have to have authority over it first.

We define ourselves, and constantly extend that definition to reflect our diversity. What business do you have questioning that? For too long, others have sought to define us, and shape our future. We seek self determination. That's not a theory. It's not up for discussion with artificially constructed theoretical groupings like the anarchist movement.(How many would define themselves as that first and foremost?) You have the Identity crisis on your hands. We're comfortable with who we are and where we are going. You guys can't even define the word "anarchy". You rely on obscure failed thinkers to define you. That must be easier than trying to think where you stand yourself huh?

The nationalism you accuse us of is non existent. The only people who talk about it like that are the tories. The SNLA was a three man joke til last week, when their head was found hanged in his cell. We have a serious BNP push on round here right now. Entirely against the ethnic minorities. The same authoritarian "Your not this, you are that" type of schpiell. They are unionist too. I'm making a stand against their rhetoric too, and confronting activists handing out leaflets. Isn't it uncomfortable for you to find yourself arguing on their side!!!???

Hope that answered your predictably closed minded questions. Go read another treatise on the terrible threat of nationalist resurgence or something.

PS. Why 256? Mathematical reasons. Something to do with the birds and the bees. I'll tell you when you grow up.

bigdave
Offline
Joined: 25-07-04
Oct 28 2004 15:02

I suppose I think Scotland would just be better off moving away from a monarchy. I also appreciate, though, that the capitalist machine is international and cannot be fought by individual nations. It comes back to the question of how people can be organised enough to make changes - I think this may be more possible in smaller countries but Scotland could just collapse and be a mess (even more than it is now). Nah I don't really "believe" in a Scottish identity - it's just another ego-based prejudicial way of grouping peole with some apparent links so its just too limited to be any use in trying to understand any arguments.

I am descended from Irish immigrants but I don't define myself by that either (and, as far as I can see, the difference in the two migrations is the Irish coming to this country were pretty beaten down by the natives whereas the migrants to "Ulster" ended up not so downtrodden.)

Quote:
oh and just to piss u off

Just asking reasonable questions doesn't piss me off, just childish, ignorant, prejudicial rudeness - it works directly against people organising and is an indulgence. I would support any group looking for self-rule in general. Could the USA be any worse now if the South had seceded? And the "Ulster" unionists surely would never give up their "Britishness"? And there isn't a united Ireland. But generally, yes, although I would advocate self government, the whole argument is a wee bit irrelevant until we can find a way of organising internationally.

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
Oct 28 2004 17:07

Sorry about the Broons thing, actually I've nothing against local dialects and I do reckon they should be used and be seen to be used - I can remember the years of upper class Anglified accents that were the norm on local tele in the north of Ireland, as I'm sure was the case with a lot of other regional accents. And I actually did like the Broons and Oor Willie as a kid (sorry but for people who haven't seen the Scottish Sunday Post this is probably a bit obscure).

And I don't actually mind people celebrating and enjoying aspects of their 'culutre', its the idea that that culture is primordial, unchanging and gives certain sections of society the materials for the project of building nation states that I object to. Also as part of the development of modern nationalism a lot of these things were actually invented or adapted beyond recognition. As well as Gaelic Football football (as in soccer) is an example of that, and hurling was tranformed into a spectator sport with formalised rules. But while I don't mind a bit of fiddlydee music on occassion, would support Ireland in the worldcup (and only the world cup I normally don't give a fuck about football) for as long as they manage to stay in, and anyone who is playing against England until they get put out, we have to acknowledge that our 'cultures' are at the same time changing, much more diverse than nationalists, nationalism or those purporting a specific and separate identity give them credit for, and at the same time much more similar than people care to acknowledge (and this cannot all be explained away in terms of colonialism).

Dave, Irish immigrants did a bit better in Scotland than in England, but the experience is not a universal one, different Irish people and different groups of Irish people had divergent experiences of migration. While a lot of anti-Irish sentiment was in evidence at different times this was not unifom or uniformly experienced. Also the plantation and the role of Scots Presbyterians in it is not just as straight forward in terms of their role in oppressing the 'natives' as it is for some other sections of the 'settler' communities - if fact the government enacted penal laws against anyone who was not Anglican back in the day. Oh and when I said descendants I meant ancestors of course.

Culture if it is seen as the things people do is usually not a problem, although it can be, where the problem comes in is in the deliberate creation of, or fostering of, a 'common' identity used to bind a group together in support of a nationalist project of state building. This is reactionary whether it is a dominant nationalism or an underdog nationalism. Look, celebrate divversity by all means, but if we want to increase peoples control over their lives lets do that, by identifying projects that will increase peoples control over their own lives. Creating a new state won't achieve that.

Also, it is an inescapable fact that nationalism divides and weakens working class people and their organisations. It depends on the fostering and perpetuating of an us (the nation) and the them (the colonial oppressor and the foreigner in general) who are not in the 'in group' (to use sociological jargon).

We end up with cross-class alliances, with different sides in what will, if people are serious about this, inevitably become a conflict. And these types of conflict, taking Northern Ireland as a pretty pertinant example, are counted in working class lives in terms of injury, bereavement and death (and imprisonment). At the very least as I've said before we end up with working class people tied for a period to their 'betters' in their 'own' government.

I'd also rather concentrate on the reality of the exploitation faced by working class people on a day to day basis rather than distractions that tell us everything would be alright if... If we only got rid of the... If only we had our own governemnt... If only we had a united Irish state... If only we could reclaim 'our' language... then all our other problems would go away. If you fall for this you end up putting your energy into the distractions and ignoring the real struggle, oppression and inequalities we all face, in common, on a daily basis.

circle A red n black star

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Oct 28 2004 17:12
nuclearcivvy wrote:
I do claim national identity is a fact. If you went round here asking, you'd get some who'd primarily identify with some other state of being. Sure. How many would deny their Scots heritage though? probably less than 1%

That means you exclude 99% of us from your revolution, because we won't discard our identity for you. It's useful to us. We may lay it down willingly some day, but we have to have authority over it first.

That's like saying we should fight in favour of gender roles because most people identify with them.

Quote:
The nationalism you accuse us of is non existent. The only people who talk about it like that are the tories. The SNLA was a three man joke til last week, when their head was found hanged in his cell. We have a serious BNP push on round here right now. Entirely against the ethnic minorities. The same authoritarian "Your not this, you are that" type of schpiell. They are unionist too. I'm making a stand against their rhetoric too, and confronting activists handing out leaflets. Isn't it uncomfortable for you to find yourself arguing on their side!!!???

Oh shut up. The BNP are British nationalists, therefore they want to maintain the British union. What me, Revol and others are saying is independence for Scotland isn't a necessary part of the fight against capitalism. Fucks sake, you're like people who say that if you didn't support the war on Iraq you must be pro-Saddam.

Quote:
PS. Why 256? Mathematical reasons. Something to do with the birds and the bees. I'll tell you when you grow up.

You are quite a strange person.

Spartacus's picture
Spartacus
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Oct 28 2004 18:08
Quote:
Spain threw off a right wing globalist/militrist government in favour of a left wing anti-globalist anti-militrist government, throught a broad peoples movement in accordance with PGA hallmarks.

er, by this are you referring to the elections ealier this year? do you think spain is now some sort of wonderful direct democracy or even a socialist republic, or indeed that the change meant anything much more than say when tony blair came to power in 1997? if you do, you are very, very wrong. what on earth are you on about?

and do you not see that when you use this "we" to refer to a group of people defined by the fact they grew up or have cultural roots in a geographical area (be it scotland, england, spain, euskadi, west papua, chelmsford), you are inevitably encouraging a cross class aliance, and implying that the working class of said region have more in common with the ruling class of the same region than they do with others from the same class? and really what is the point in independence nowadays anyway, when an independent scotland would inevitably join the eu, and so a lot of the power would be off in brussels, before we even go into the fact that capitalism is a global system and so all this changing of who rules who is a distraction from building international resistance.

what has 2 to the power of 8 got to do with anything?

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Nov 15 2004 01:05

Do we Really need this to appear here at all? Couldn't this be shifted elsewhere, anywhere not on enrager. Flame wars suck. And if this is best we can do we suck too! Another whinge from me.

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Nov 15 2004 10:55

Thanks for the welcome.

If this threads been dead for weeks y r u still scribbling here?

"devoloping local automony"is admittedly fairly meanigless, but not a buzzword yet.

Not sure who the midlands crew r or y u mention them. Stirring?

The 'we' i keep referring to r the users of this discussion forum, who hopefully would want the stite to b user friendly.

4 moans and counting

i wait for your reply with baited breath.

Topic locked