From: "Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba-AT-online.no> Subject: AUT: Re: More thoughts on war and self-determination and states Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 13:18:11 +0100 -----Original Message----- From: cwright <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net> To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> Date: 8. november 2001 3:19 Subject: AUT: More thoughts on war and self-determination and states Chris writes:: "I am not for supporting the Taliban, as many Leninists are calling for." If this is true, it only goes to show the complete level of absurdity they have reached. Unsurpisingly it also shows how they've emptied the concept of self determination of any contents. Taliban may be about many things but self-determination is something they utterly oppose. What is next support for the Ku-Klux-Klan. It seems to be the only ting left that Leninist have not supported. There is something essentially wrong in the way you pose the questions, I think. Why make things that are simple difficult. In the case of Afganistan the easy thing is to know who to be against: The Pentagon,Taliban, Afghan-Arabs, Northern Alliance war-lords, religious parties, the governments of Pakistan and other neig- bourhood states, Russia, Saudi Arabia etc.. Plague on all their houses. The real question is who we can support. The only organised force of some significance on the ground working towards a greater degree of self-determination – a lower level of oppression and exploitation – is as far as I know, the RAWA. We must globalise our struggle both when it comes to seeking out allies and enemies. [The funny thing when it comes to Afganistan is that that among the contenders for power, the king might very well be the most progressive force.] Full self-determination can only exist within the context of anarchism/lfree communism: These are social relations that by defintion cannot be imposed. What we should be talking about now is degrees of self-determination versus degrees of oppression and exploitation. As for military annexations there is nothing to discuss. I have hard to see why you bring it up. As an anarchist I have aways taken it for granted that freedom cannot be imposed. Neither do such annexations seem to be much on the agenda today, with the possible exception of Israeli settler colonialism. The question of past annexations is interesting. For what do you include in defining these? Do you count in the movement of people which generally, if not always, throughout history have accompanied conquests? In case, I am certainly opposed to sending all arabs back to the Arab Peninsula, of throwing all Turks out of Turkey, or Slavs out of what used to constitute Yugoslavia... Yes I am generally all for letting history be history. I am certainly opposed to the ongoing Israeli settler colonialism, even if it is certainly historically true that jews lived in what today is called Palestine prior to arabs, if you just go long enough back in history. Again, I do not think the term right is of much use in these questions. As for Afghanistan there is one think we can be pretty certain of, it is very unlikely that out of the present situation there will emerge anything even close to self-determination with or without US intervention. We can support forces like the RAWA, who work for lesser degrees of oppression and exploitation and a greater degree of self-determination. Realistically, given the weakness of the anti-war movement, the best Afghans can hope for now is a short a war as possible, which translates into the sooner the defeat of the Taliban the better. For the working classes of other countries that "harbour terrorist" the opposite might be true. As such the current anti-war movement must be seen as a movement to prevent the next war to happen. We might have a better change here, as even Blair does not seem to happy about the thought, and we have more time to build up a momentum. * * * You ask: "Does our position as member of the annexed territory or the annexing state matter?" Not to what political positions to take. As always, somethings are seen better from within other things better from without, which makes a great case for critical dialogue. Of course the length of time may matter. It does not make much sense to wage a stuggle for the breaking up of France, Italy, Norway, India, Pakistan or Iraq today, for instance. Or for the Norwegian state to reclaim parts of Sweden. Luckily, anybody who suggested this, would be met with laughter. But these things must be viewed concretely. At times it might make sense to pose the question of autonomy, and on a more general level: a greater degree of political decentralisation. The latter pro- bably would make sense within Russia, rather than reactionary nationalism. All states have been created through the use of force. There are no natural borders, only imposed ones. They are all artifical. Those who come closest to having natural borders are islands like Island. The whole set of questions can be posed in terms of what brings more freedom, less oppression and exploitation, more power to the working classes. You ask "what is the real reason for the current conflict?" If you with that mean why bombs are now falling over Afghanistan the answer remains September 11. I do not understand why it is so hard to accept the obvious. Just as it obvious that the US will use the opportunity to advance a wider geopolitical agenda. Then you can go on to question why the September 11, which is an interesting question? Or why the United States of America is what it is? You can also say that the answer to all these questions and many more is capitalism. But what really would have been sensational, given September 11, was if bombs were not today falling over Afghanistan. Why some talk as if September 11 never happened is a case for psycologists. We must build a movement against the "war on terrorism" on the basis that the twin towers were turned into a graveyard not on illusions and not on the stupefying repetion of old slogans. We will support people on the basis of what they are fighting for not who they are fighting against. To choice between pest and cholera is not a question, it is a trap. Harald --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005