Comments on: mobilisation and militancy in the anti-war movement: photos and report of 10th january palestine demo

By: Marcus Bent

Marcus Bent — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:55:31 +0000

Bill, you’ll find the PLO have negotiated for a seriously limited ‘right of return’ (e.g. at Taba), involving as few as 100 000 Palestinian refugees. So, you’re factually wrong.
I’m a million miles from the AWL but I find the idea that they are racist wrong and unpleasant.
And ‘anti-socialist’ too? Why can’t you say, ‘I don’t agree with them’ instead? Leave out the hype.
It is the sort of demonising that got their people attacked (i.e. their placard ripped up) by leftists and Palestinian solidarity activists last weekend (have you seen this stupidity in Sheffield? – on Indymedia and elsewhere. It is shocking, just too bad.)
Let’s argue properly with these people, not resort to nonsense.

By: bill j

bill j — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:31:38 +0000

Agree with Marcus. If there was ever a time to clarify what your position on Israel/Palestine is then its now.
The two states position is racist – as is demonstrated quite clearly by Hiroshima – as it depends on racial discrimination between Palestinians and Jews. Its really as simple as that. If you’re a socialist you can’t support racial discrimination and therefore you have to be against two states. As I pointed out before the PLO’s position is ambiguous but fundamentally incoherent as at the moment when they support two states, they also support its abolition through the right of return.
Of course the AWL do support two states and oppose the right of return which is why they are a bunch of racist non-socialists. Simple really.

By: Marcus Bent

Marcus Bent — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:40:13 +0000

I’m not measuring the Commune against the LRC, the Nicaragua Solidarity Campaign, the GMB or the Women’s Institute – but against what reasonably should be expected from Marxists, from a revolutionary socialist group.
A small or large revolutionary socialist organisation? – size is not the issue. Political necessity flowing from what you (should) understand your political role to be, should force you to comment.
The fact you haven’t, just tells us all something about what you think you’re doing and the political ‘density’ of your group.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:19:35 +0000

The LRC has over 1000 members, is it a disgrace that everyone of them has not issued as statement of their position on Gaza or is it suffice that the organisation has made it position clear? I think the answer is straightforward dont you. And it applies I think to small and large organisations.

By: Marcus Bent

Marcus Bent — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:39:52 +0000

Chris, your ‘division of labour’ involves not telling us what you think about the most important questions. Unless, as you hint, their is an important body of work which you could reveal to the users of this site, but have chosen not to. Let us see!
And Chris, having a position on something, say a war, amounts to dogmatism?
I could understand – a little bit more – if you had concluded, say, that you’d discussed the political situation on Gaza and the events had put a question mark over your long-held positions. You might declare the need to rethink, open up a discussion period or something similar. You’d have a big problem – you’d be paralysed.
Forgive me but isn’t the Marxist way to rest on your tradition, just a little bit? Rather than forget about what we said in the past? Isn’t it important to measure current reality against past positions? Or does ‘new thinking’ just well-up from no-where, spontaneously shining out its beautiful light?

By: Hiroshima

Hiroshima — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:57:14 +0000

Ey Bill J, following your definition we are living under Jim Crow laws these days ?! Your justice talk is only rethoric, the only thing you think about is the destruction of Israel as a Zionist state. Better start hating your own country and than engage in saving the kittens. Palestinians and their land, what a bullshit. Ever wondered why you have not joined the BNP. Think of inviting your Palestinians to live in Scotland or in your neighbourhood, with such a justice no border approach, maybe they ll cool down a bit. Maybe not. Then you ll think twice before hugging em. Stubborn self-hating morality you show up here.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:00:52 +0000

Marcus, I would suggest your comment is rather silly. So what if I have not written prominently on The Commune on Gaza or two-states. Since when does every member of an organisation have to register publicly their views in order to satisfy the curiosity of others. For a political organisation – big or small – to function in such a manner would be simply ridiculous. There is such a thing as a division of labour you know, the views of The Commune have been made clear in our publications issued in the course of the conflict. I think the choice we face is whether to sink into dogmatism so common on a left stuck in a false sense of confidence it has answers to all questions when in fact it does not or be serious critical communists, with a sense of modesty and not pretentiousness. Which means admitting you don’t have a bag by which to reach in and pull out ready made answers but may actually engage in a process of critique and self-critique.
In conclusion we can perhaps take a leaf out of Marx’s book, when the young Marx broke from capitalist society he defined the task of the journal he wanted to publish in the following terms:

We should avoid presenting ourselves to the world in a doctrinaire fashion and with a new principle, declaring: here is the truth, bow down and worship it. We should develop new principles for the world out of its old principles. We must not say to the world: stop your quarrel, they are foolish, and listen to us. We posses the real truth. Instead we must show the world why it struggles, and this consciousness is a thing it must acquire whether it likes it or not

By: Marcus Bent

Marcus Bent — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:45:36 +0000

Chris, you may well have been for two states in the past, perhaps even loudly, perhaps for many, many years. I don’t know, I’ll take your word for it. What I do know, however, is that you’re not now, clearly obviously, loudly, for two states, on this site, during this crisis. I had to find out by asking you!
So it is nice that Communard states he/she “would accept the criticism that we have not expressed any very clear collective position on the ‘big politics’ of the region.”
But I would suggest that Communard’s justification (” I think this is more or less a combination of people not having had the time, and it being very difficult to compress the complexity of the area into something small enough to hand out.”) is, with all due respect, absolutely ridiculous!
Surely, Communard, if the Commune is worth anything as a political outfit it has to, in the first instance, concentrate on “big politics”. Otherwise you’ll end up tailing others.
And, Communard, I’d agree that not everything complex can be fitted onto a leaflet. So, at this point you face a choice: don’t write about complex things, or produce material in other formats…
You can say what you like about the AWL (and I think they are very poor), but they do have theory. Good for them, on a certain level…

By: bill j

bill j — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:29:03 +0000

The bourgeoisie have not resolved the problem in either South Africa or Northern Ireland, in both states separation/partition and racial discrimination are rife. In the case of Northern Ireland more so than during the “troubles”.
There is no problem whatsoever with giving all the residents of the region the same rights, but equality i.e. the same rights, are the only basis upon which such “counter-veiling” rights can be equitably resolved.
If equal rights are granted – including the elementary democratic right of being able to live where you want, Israel as presently constituted i.e. as Jewish state, ceases to exist.
That is why only a one state solution at least holds out the possibility of justice.
That is why a two state “solution” is only a continuation of racism/apartheid segregation.
A two state “solution” means that Jim Crow style laws will be necessary to police the borders of the two states – perhaps on the basis of skin colour, religion, language or whatever, to prevent people from living in their non designated area – in other words apartheid style racist segregation laws.
Or Jim Crow for short.
As socialists we know that only the working class can solve the national question once and for all – and only with socialism will the material resources be available to ameliorate any problems caused by the consistent application of democratic rights. Hence the democratic struggle needs to grow over into the socialist one. The revolution must be permanent.
But before that we need to ditch AWL style racism – two state apartheid – for good.

By: Hiroshima

Hiroshima — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:34:27 +0000

problem with a two state solution is that in palestine everyone knows unconsciously that to have a own state won´t bring any economic solution to their problem. the palestinian people have to live in a shit hole and are simply too late to start up within the world system. mass labourers with no future at all. and their political rackets know that if a state solution is reached they will have to abondon the fight against Israel which means a bloody civil war for limited resources since their their political power, objectives and income nowadays is largely based on the funding of terrorists. the arab states have no interest in such a solution since they managed to slaughter and drive the palestinian refugees from their territories. In a two state solution the bourgoise in Israel at least gains cheap labour power and peace for its citizens. Mean there will be no shiny state solution for the palestinians and that is why their nationalism runs mad in projecting their own lack of hope in their phantasies of extermination. So problem is, no one with an understanding of fun is up to book their holiday on the beaches of Gaza where your live is threatened when you start to play ball games. To promote state solution for Gaza (or worse, the extinction of Israel as a Zionist state) is actually what hinders the emancipation of the Palestinian working class. Well, they should give it a try, but for this all people have to fight the Islamists as a first step to progress.