Re: Orange Order

Sat, 18 Jul 1998 14:39:48 +0200
Juan Luis Chulilla (jenofon@idecnet.com)

Hi all

I need to answer to your posting, Rebbeca, since it shock me. In the
long, and sometimes hot debate between Andrew and you, I thought that
you APPLIED a monumental theory and you were looking for a particular
debate. I mean, I thought that you USED the theory. However, looking
your post about orangeism, I saw that you doesn't use the marxist
theory, but you defines your position exclusively in marxist terms.

As was said some days ago, the problem is that marxist theory was a
magnificent theoretical model for CONCRETE circumstances of the early
industrial Britain. I think that, probably, Marx would have reason in
some of his predictions, but the problem is that his adversaries readed
his books, and took the appropiate learnings.

Well. I think that you have a illicit mixing. You can apply a
theoretical model into a concrete proposal, but you have to separate
theory from social reality in the analytical proccess. If you don't so,
you can reach the distance enough to evaluate properly a concrete
subject. Let me explain with a similar anthropological problem: I
suppose you know the Pike's distinction between emic and etic reality,
distinction which was popularized by Harris. Well, I you can't separate
your own analysis from the reality you percive, or with the reality you
know through different means, you are damned to evaluate a problem with
unappropiate tools; I mean, you will always use your own tool for
problems for which your tools are not desinged to work.

When you use sentences like "sectarian organisation" and sectarianism,
you aren't analyze; you are judging. You have the right to judge, as
each human being, but you can't tell us that, at the same time, you are
analyzing. Judging means,with no doubt, using the categories of the
judge for evaluate a problem which is defined with different categories.
Taking in mind that your categories (let me tell you, specially yours)
are definited and constructed, you eliminate the construction proccess
from the analysis. If you don't construct at the analyzing time, If you
don't create (applicating the creations of others or by the pure force
of mental creation), your analysis will be sterile. And, if it is
sterile, you cannot expect to make a practical propose.

You can't expect that reality will adapt your categories. Obviously, you
have to adapt. One good star point for adaptation is freeing (as you
can) your categories of prejudgements. It's impossible in absolute
means, but you have to try and keep constantly in mind. The elimination
of your prejudgements will lead to you to a task-designed sort of
categories, categories which will be open by the force of the freeing of
prejudgements

Introducing the concrete problem, the OO

1)In opposing the Orange Order communists are opposing capitalism.
How can you tell us this? If capitalism is a world dynamic, you won't
harm capitalism even if you obtain victory over the OO. Keeping in mind
that, after all, capitalism is a construct, a theoretical model (well,
the best model we know for explain the economical dynamics of the modern
world), you can't harm it attacking a real group. Capitalism are defined
by scholars, OO is defined by itself, by is members. OO has a
registrated history, recognized members and different uses and practices
perceivables in the reality. You have to apply the capitalism concept to
the reality, you have to choose who are his agents, which force it has,
which agenda it pursuit. If you don't want to personalize, if you don't
want to create an enemy, looking for a fight (a masochistic fight, as
it's impossible that you can reach the victory, so, in last instance,
you create your own defeat), you have to agree with me that capitalism
is an unpersonal force which has reach a dominant situation in social
dynamics. well, If you do so, it's illicit that you blend the actions of
a concrete, real group, with the results of such unpersonal force. In
other words, telling us that opposing the Orange Order communists are
opposing capitalism, you are recreating a enemy, I suppose your enemy,
in comfortable terms, but in no way you are present us a valid analysis.
If you don't have in mind the illicit quality of such blending, well,
anyway, there is an unsurpassable difference of dimension between OO and
capitalism that invalidate any practice Vs OO that, at the same time,
wants to affect capitalism.

2) Change the Orange man and you change society --create a new
population and you create a new society.

A society is NEVER created. The society creates -or better, configures-
it self in a centuries-long proccess. I think about society in system
concepts. If you force the society to a concrete way, the society will
react, and the results will be unpredictable. Usually, the results are
very near to nil, as the negenthropic forces of the society are very
strong. Remember a sentence of the master of Marx: "The no-intentional
comsecuences of the intentional action". Let me show you a light
approximation of the problem in anthropological terms: the symbols and
practices of orangeist are the core of their existence as definited
group, the representation in reality of their identity. You cannot
change, in a short period. You only can destroy their symbols and
practices, and with it destroying his identity as a group. It has a
name: etnocide. I can tell you a example for my country: the prohibition
of symbols and practices of Islam leads to a non-return point to
hispanic muslim, whose had to exile for their beloved country. A very
small number remained, but the social pressure of the victorious
christian force to convert to christianity. The etnocidal proccess last
for +-150 years, and meanwhile the cost in blood an suffering was
indescribable.

If someone try to destroy the Orangeist identity, he would have to keep
in mind the integrist quality of such group. OO is defined, as every
social group in the world, opposing its own values to the other's ones.
The mechanism of definition by opposition leads to the creation of a
special figure, the Other, who would be a hated enemy or a different,
sometimes feared, sometimes looked suspiciously, sometimes attractive
one. Obviously, the integrist members of the OO define their neighbours
as an enemy. Well, if the symbols of the OO are attacked, of the
practices of the OO are prohibited, Who will be the guilty for the
orangeist? his catholic neighbours, so they will attack them in
response. As some catholics defines the OO as an enemy, the aspects of
human existence that they aren't, an attack from the OO will be
response. Do you like to return to the bloody days?

If you can change something, you only can change the basis of the
relation, and you only can do this changing the basis of each group's
definition, the Other figure. you have to change the enemy for the
ambiguous figure I defined above. The proccess will be slow, and
painful, and the results will not be sure. But it's better that
increasing the violence, or commit etnocide to one of the two
communities.

..
..
..

As a summary, please, don't blend the theoretical terms with the
pragmatical ones.

Ah, by the way, I basically agree with Karl

Until next time, take care

PS: please forgive my sometimes bizarre use of English

Rebecca Peoples escribió:

> Hi Comrades The Orange Order is a sectarian organisation designed to
> perpetuate and develop sectarianism within the working class in
> Ireland. Its core role is that of increasing the oppression of the
> Irish working class in the interests of the accumulation of capital.
> In view of this it is the duty of communists to seek the destruction
> of the Orange Order. This is done by means of propaganda, agitation
> and politics entailing the seizure of state power. In view of this
> communism is opposed to all parades and activities of the OO.
> Consequently those elements that are only opposed to some Orange
> marches (Sinn Fein and Michael Farrell retired "revolutionary")
> misunderstand the real nature of the OO and in fact support its
> existence. All parades must be opposed irrespective as to whether they
> proceed down staunchly Loyalist working class areas or staunchly
> nationalist working class areas. How that opposition takes places is a
> function the particular conjuncture of events --a tactical matter. In
> opposing the Orange Order communists are opposing capitalism. However
> the opposition takes on a form that reveals theoretically and
> politically this fact. Unlike opportunism the OO is not opposed in
> such a way as to suggest that it is merely the OO that is the source
> of sectarianism and the corresponding divisions. To limit the struggle
> to a mere political attack upon the OO is to obstruct the struggle
> against capitalism and thereby support the latter and the OO. Sinn
> Fein and its allies have been seeking to delude the working class into
> thinking that the problem is Orangeism and not capitalism nor its
> specific form imperialism. Consequently they focus attention on the
> need to eliminate, mollify or transform Orangeism as the means to
> bring about the demise of sectarianism within the framework of the
> rule of capitalism and specifically British imperialism. They focus
> attention on the need to cajole, pressurise or woo the Irish, British
> and American states into forcing Orangeism to mend its ways and
> eliminate its sectarian character. Orangeism is now the real source of
> the problem of oppression. Change the Orange man and you change
> society --create a new population and you create a new society. The
> Irish, British and American states are neutral arbitrators for good
> and against evil --superstitious belief in the state. The fight
> against Orangeism then is the fight against imperialism and thereby
> capitalism. The fight against Orangeism must be fought on the basis of
> a fight against the capitalist states on both sides of the border. The
> fight against Orangeism is a fight for socialism --the class
> struggle. Warm regardsRebecca
>