Italian Anarchist Federation Statement on the War in Ukraine

From Anarchist Communist Group UK

ACG comments:

Whilst the ACG approves of this Manifesto overall, internal discussions have highlighted some concerns over the use of the term “revolutionary defeatism”. We feel that the document would benefit from either clearer definition of what is meant by the term, or possibly the use of a different term. For us ‘revolutionary defeatism’ can only mean a refusal to call off the class war in the name of ‘national unity’ during a war between states. However it is possible to interpret ‘revolutionary defeatism’ as meaning that the organised working class within a state should work towards the military defeat of that state’s national forces by an enemy state.

In the latter case it might be argued that whichever state has been most ruthless and successful in suppressing its own organised working class in the years leading up to war, might benefit from “revolutionary defeatism” amongst the stronger working class of its “national enemy”. It seems logical that this could contribute to the military victory of the most successfully anti-worker of two warring states.

The ACG would like to emphasise the need for a defensive posture amongst armed workers to, for example, defend their communities (not ‘the nation’) against an army of invasion, and to make explicit our acknowledgement that in the chaos and terror of war an ideologically pure response is often extremely difficult to maintain for both individuals and organizations.

Statement

In these months in which the tragedy of war is increasingly brought to international attention by the crisis in Ukraine, the theme of anarchist anti-militarism is more compelling than ever. We see how, already before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, some heavy-handed criticism of our traditional anti-militarism was carried out by some individuals and groups who declare themselves anti-authoritarian, libertarian or anarchist. We have carefully considered these positions in the last few months, and we believe today that we need to clarify our point of view.

Our thoughts first go to our comrades who, more than one century ago, before the tragedy of the First World War, felt the need to affirm that: “To all the soldiers of all countries who believe they are fighting for justice and liberty, we have to declare that their heroism and their valour will but serve to perpetuate hatred, tyranny, and misery” (International Anarchist Manifesto against the War, 1915). Like Goldman, Berkman, Malatesta, Schapiro and the others, we believe in the need that the internationalist and solidarity voice of anarchism, together with its principles of universal sisterhood and brotherhood, return to speak to everyone, even more in a world that is increasingly fragmented by national, ethnic and identity hatred.

War stands at the origin of the current social order, based on domination, exploitation and oppression. This is a key point for the FAI, as it is exposed in the Anarchist Programme which is the theoretical reference of our Federation: “Not understanding the advantages that could come to everyone from cooperation and solidarity, seeing in every other person a competitor and an enemy, a part of humanity has tried to grab the greatest possible amount of wealth to the detriment of the other. In such a struggle, the strongest, or the most fortunate, ends for winning and variously oppressing and dominating the vanquished”.

This is why we maintain our position of rejection of all wars and of support to the idea of revolutionary defeatism. By defeatism we mean a revolutionary position before war, which implies that one should fight for the defeat of the government and the ruling classes of their own country, believing that wars are fought for the interests and privileges of the oppressors and exploiters. At the beginning of the twentieth century, and especially during the First World War, some European governments used the charge of “defeatism” to repress any form of dissent, opposition to war, political protest or workers’ struggle, which would break the national unity before the enemy. Therefore, defeatism does not accept the suspensions of social struggles that are imposed by governments in times of war through censorship, repression and martial laws. On the contrary, the struggle against the government during wartimes continues, by both sabotaging the war and encouraging social struggles. Defeatism is inserted in an internationalist and revolutionary perspective which aims at provoking the defeat of the imperialism of “our own” countries, and one of its fundamental points is the refusal to support any belligerent party in wars between states and / or imperial blocks.

Dozens of wars are currently being fought, with their load of deaths, destruction, rapes, looting and mass deportation. In the last fifteen years, the crisis of the hegemony system based on globalization has produced a worldwide trend towards authoritarianism and militarization. Globalization as a form of world domination has for a long time ensured a privileged role in the exploitation of the planet’s resources to Anglo-American imperialism, with the support of the privileged classes of various countries. The entry of Russia and China into the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization has shown that the conflicts between these powers do not question the division of society into classes and various hierarchies.

At the FAI Congress that took place in Empoli in June 2022, we issued a statement regarding interpretations of the war in Ukraine, of which we quote a part: “In the last ten years, a very different scenario has been defined by the intensification of tensions between states, the trade and financial wars, the progressive isolation of markets to a greater or lesser extent, the extension of conflicts which occur partly by proxy, but increasingly in direct form, between worldwide and regional powers in different regions of the world. The capitalist model that was imposed in the last century by US hegemony is still the horizon within which contentions between states take place, but the world is no longer dominated by a single superpower. The US have lost the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, and compared to a few decades ago their influence in Central and South America, which they used to consider their backyard, has significantly diminished. The AUKUS agreement between Australia, the UK and the US, which reoriented the strategy of these states towards the Pacific with a separate alliance, seemed to challenge the US presence in Europe and the very cohesion, if not existence, of NATO. Thus, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is part of a process of redefining the global balance of power.

The crisis of this global hegemony is closely linked with the crisis of governmental systems based on social cohesion, due to the cutting of social guarantees and the weakening of consensus mechanisms. In many countries, we have seen the rising of movements that, with different forms and characteristics, question the governments and the agreements between the ruling classes. In this context, the use of force becomes these latter’s main instrument for the preservation of power and social order. In this sense, we have discussed in recent years the growing role of the military in societies. The uprising in Belarus in 2020 and the insurrection in Kazakhstan in January 2022 have shown a serious crisis of consensus within the Russian-led system. In the holding of the OTSC, the military has assumed a key role. The Russian military intervention in Kazakhstan to bloodily crush popular uprisings gave a tragic demonstration of this, and paved the way for the invasion of Ukraine in February. Even in the US, the anti-police riots against racist violence in 2020 led the armed forces leadership to support Biden’s installation as president in a prelude to civil war in early 2021, to prevent Trump’s violent supremacism from irreparably exasperating the consensus crisis.”

The response to the crisis is the increase in military spending and the strengthening of the role of the armed forces in political decisions. Once destroyed the mechanisms of economic and political regulation that established the hierarchy between powers and the flows of profits towards the imperialist metropolises, the ruling classes need war to restore the old domination or to define new ones. In the context of this new world disorder, recourse to war and military missions is growing, in whatever way governments define them in their propaganda.

From Ukraine to Yemen, from Sahel countries to Myanmar, from Afghanistan to Tigray and elsewhere, passing through all the regions where genocides such as the Kurdish one and those of indigenous and Afro-descendant populations are underway, we are all potentially under the bombs and the threat of destruction, repression and authoritarian change. We know well that the revolving doors between so-called democracies and the so-called autocracies can move very quickly, and that the state of war quickly reduces the space for those who want to act for social transformation. We always give our human solidarity to those who suffer and risk their lives being in difficult situations, even if they have ideas and practices that are distant from those we express.

However, social anarchism breaks the current imperial, capitalist, nationalist and authoritarian logics, rejecting the divisions imposed by borders. We do not recognize the concept of territorial integrity or territorial “defence” of a state or any entity that aspires to be like a state because, associated with the principle of territorial sovereignty, these principles inevitably end up to foster nationalist or micro-nationalist perspectives. Whatever the word “nation” means, it hides the division between exploiters and exploited, between oppressors and oppressed.

We reiterate our irrevocable and unambiguous condemnation of the Putinian regime and of its criminal invasion of Ukraine, as well as its ferocious repression of internal dissent. But we also condemn the criminal role of all governments that blow on the flames of this and other conflicts by providing weapons, often making money with these supplies. We strongly oppose NATO, which has long been trying to impose the militarization of social life and the increase of military spending in member countries, and which thanks to Putin has gained new strength after the inglorious end of their aggression in Afghanistan. In the same way, we don’t buy the narrative of a war between freedom and dictatorship. From this point of view, Zelensky’s Ukraine is truly a small Russia, with an authoritarian government, a circle of oligarchs who plunder the country, acting a repression against all forms of protest and against minorities that the war has made harder. Today Zelensky, in order to remain in power, is making debts and sells his country to the US, the United Kingdom, the European Union in exchange of their military support. Yet, the penetration of Western interests in Ukraine is far from being only due to the Russian invasion of February 24: multinational agri-food companies, many from the United States and one from Russia, control part of the “granary” of Europe and its main commercial port in Odessa since over 10 years.

The consequences of this war are dramatic on both sides of the front. They are disastrous also for the rest of Europe, with the increase in prices due to speculation, the growing militarization and rearmament, the worsening of the living conditions of millions of proletarians, including fear and violence, which risk to become dangerous tools for authoritarian governments. This situation is once again perceived in Europe, but it actually characterises most regions of the world, paralleling the environmental devastation fostered by the logics of profit, markets and states, which threaten the very life of the planet where we live.

The first commitment of those who oppose the war is the construction and dissemination of mutual aid practices such as networks of solidarity from below to fulfil the immediate needs of the people who suffer most from the consequences of the conflict, being these food or medical support. There is also the need of support networks for those who practice strikes, sabotage, desertion, such as transnational networks for those who hide or flee from or over both sides of the front. In this vein, we reject and fight to deconstruct the patriarchal and domination models imposed by militarism that are endlessly repeated by the war propaganda on official media and on social media as well, where centre stage is always taken the same images of robust and young male fighters.

From various parts it was suggested to take a stand by actually fighting for one of the governments that make this war, as if taking sides for one or the other were inevitable.

Some relics of Marxism think that they can support a minor imperialism in order to defeat the prevailing threat that they identify with the “Western” one. But the strategy of playing with imperialist powers to sharpen their contradictions, like the alliance between workers’ movements and nationalist forces that characterized Stalinism between the two world wars and after, led to destroy all revolutionary perspective and to hinder all autonomous action of the exploited and oppressed classes.

Other interpretations follow different approaches, assessing Russian imperialism as a danger for the whole of Europe and beyond. These interpretations are also endorsed by some components of libertarian orientation. Without questioning the threat posed by Russia’s authoritarianism and militarism, we believe that it will not be Russia’s military defeat in Ukraine that will prevent an authoritarian turn in Western Europe. The authoritarian social processes that are evidently dominant in Russia and in the OTSC countries are also being acted since years in the European Union, and the war is now giving them a further acceleration. Furthermore, “democracy” is based on the condition of someone’s privilege. The vision that presents the European Union as a beacon of democracy, identifying instead Russia, China and their satellites as the heirs of totalitarianism combined with wild capitalism is the quintessence of a Westernism that does not belong to us.

These are our positions, confirming our anti-militarism in an internationalist and revolutionary perspective that should be concretely rooted in social struggles and networks of solidarity, to create collective and libertarian ways out from the vortex of war into which states and world capitalism throw us. This is our contribution to the international anti-war debate. We think that one thing must be clear above all: with or without weapons, to be effective, any fight must be done and organized from below, outside the apparatuses of states, governments and especially outside the armed forces.

Even the belligerent or co-belligerent governments are aware that the war will imply massacres and devastation in the areas directly affected, but also misery, unemployment and hunger in the rest of the world, even in Europe, even in the United States. Governments are aware that the conditions are ripening for an unprecedented social crisis, which is why they are making the brass bands of militarism and nationalism play, to prevent the solidarity of the exploited and oppressed classes.

Since governments are the promoters and beneficiaries of wars, to stop wars, governments must be afraid of popular movements, because the only limit to the whim of each government is the fear that popular movements can instil in it. Opposition to the war is part of our daily commitment, starting from the denunciation and boycott of the productions of death and from the criticism and deconstruction of militarist rhetoric, starting from militarist education and language at all levels. We must stand against all wars and all armies deploying an intersectional strategy that identifies and counters the connections between militarism and other forms of oppression such as patriarchy, racism, capitalism and all kinds of chauvinism, through collective actions as well as personal relationships.

Only the action of the exploited classes can stop the war by boycotting war productions, by refusing to construct, trade and transport weapons and all instruments of death, by participating in the opposition movements to military plants and bases, and by promoting strikes at the national and international level against war and the war economy. The anarchist movement participates in this struggles, in different ways according to the circumstances, by criticising militarist and nationalist ideologies, constructing grass-roots associations and networks from below, practicing direct action, supporting all forms of refusal, desertion and objection to the massacres promoted by capitalism and states.

We are more than ever convinced of the validity of the anarchist principle that means must be consistent with ends. There are no good wars or just wars, and in times of growing nationalist and sovereignist craziness we believe that we must never side in any way with governments or take part in wars between states and imperial blocs. People must never die or kill for territorial sovereignty. Wars are all criminal and armies (including their auxiliary corps) are all instruments of exploitation, patriarchy and more or less “legitimate” state domination over territories and over the bodies of individuals. We do not recognize any of these territorial legitimacies and we are not willing to fight for any of them.

History shows that wars are traditionally fought to hinder the action of the exploited classes for their own emancipation, which is why it is paramount for anarchism to mobilise now against the war, outside and against all military institutions. Our strength lies first in the circulation of ideas and in the defence of spaces for the production and circulation of critical thought, promoting the unification of pacifist and anti-militarist movements in a common struggle against governments. The ability of the anarchist movement to be coherent in the fight against war is the way to activate libertarian practices, organization and ideals among the exploited and oppressed classes that are the first to suffer the consequences of wars. On this basis, a new agency will be possible to provide a different solution to the crisis, looking forward to building a libertarian society.

Italian Anarchist Federation – FAI

[document presented at the XXXI Congress – Empoli June 2022 and ratified in the following weeks]

www.federazioneanarchica.org/

There are 50 Comments

Like the FAI the ACG, I agree that "the struggle against the government during wartimes continues, by...encouraging social struggles."
They are correct in opposing the Russian aggression (unlike the pro-Putin left) and U.S. and NATO imperialism (unlike the pro-Western liberal left).

Otherwise I do no agree. For one thing, there is nothing about the freedom of a people (mostly workers, the lower middle class, and the poor) to self-determination. Regardless of the nature of their government and economy (a state ruled by capitalist oligarchs), the Ukrainian people should not be invaded by their imperialist neighbor. They have a right to defend themselves (wage a "just war").

References to anarchists' opposition to the First World War are irrelevant. That was a war between blocs of imperialist states. This is a war by one imperialist state (Russia) against a capitalist but non-imperialist state (Ukraine). That the states are clashing is not our main interest either; we care about the Ukrainian working people who are being attacked. (That the Ukrainians overwhelmingly support their state and capitalist system--for now--is also not a matter for judgment. We should support their freedom to chose their manner of political and economic society, without the Russian army deciding for them.)

But the Statement says nothing whatever on what the Ukrainians want! It discusses only the imperialist conflict between the Western imperialists and the Russian imperialists, with some comments on the Ukrainian rulers. However, the Ukrainian people are not mere puppets or robots. They have their own interests and concerns. Their immediate and overwhelming issue is to be free of Russian rule. This is why Ukrainian anarchists have overwhelmingly supported the resistance to the invasion.

The British ACG supports " the need for a defensive posture amongst armed workers to, for example, defend their communities (not ‘the nation’) against an army of invasion." If it had said, "(not the national state)" I would agree. If workers defend all their communities together, at the same time, in the Ukraine, then they will be waging a war of popular defense against the imperialist aggressor.

The worst part of the statement is the call to boycott and strike all armament production! For the Ukrainian anarchists to take up this strategy would mean to disarm the weaker party--that of Ukraine--in the face of the Russians. It is a call for surrender. Unlike WW I or II, it means the victory of the imperialist side in the shooting war.

Yes, the Ukrainians have taken arms and aid from the Western imperialists. From whom else could they get aid? No doubt the West has its own interests which are not the same as that of Ukraine. (During the Vietnam-U.S. war, we did not criticize the Vietnamese for taking arms from the then-Soviet Union; although we did criticize the Vietnamese Stalinists for other reasons). Similarly, we should not criticize the Ukrainian anarchists for coordinating or working with the Ukrainian state's military forces. Who else could they work with? This is not what decides whether the anarchists will grow into a force which can, at some point in the future, overthrow the state.

STFU with your pro-war bullshit. National self-determination is not on any authentically radical anarchist agenda. It is nothing so much as your warmed up leftover idiotic Trotskyist revolutionary imposture. Your insistence that the anarchist anti-war position a hundred years ago was correct because of imperialism is a red -- and I do mean red -- herring. If you actually read various anti-war declarations of those years you will find scant mention of imperialism and lots of condemnations of capitalism and nationalism. You know, exactly those things you refuse to condemn today. It's no wonder you continually point to your shit analysis of why principled anarchists opposed the first and second world wars. Kropotkin was roundly and correctly condemned for shilling for The Entente not because the Allies were imperialists, but because they were organizing their respective proles and peasants to fight and kill other proles and peasants. The international solidarity of proles and peasants across borders has been the principled position of all authentic working class radicals and revolutionaries since the time of the International. Your Leninist Anti-Imperalist justification for supporting the Ukrainian state and its military is disgusting.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-in-reply-to-kr...
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/malatesta/ForgottenPrincip...

Anarchists should be on the side of the oppressed and exploited, and support them when they fight back against imperialist aggressors and oppressors. This should be a pretty simple idea which Anon 20:04 just doesn't get.

On this list site I have repeatedly demonstrated that the classical anarchists, from Bakunin on, supported national struggles for independence and freedom. They said so over and over, and not just Kropotkin. I wrote a whole essay on Errico Malatesta's support of national independence wars--and applied his views to the Ukrainian war today: https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32666?search_text=Wayne+Price

In response (?) you note that "the anarchists of one hundred years ago" rarely wrote about imperialism. Are you implying that they were not against imperialism? Elsewhere you have argued that times have changed, international capitalism has changed, therefore the anti-imperialism, pro-national liberation, views of the earlier anarchists no longer apply. But we still live under international capitalism, imperialism, (neo) colonialism, national states, and the domination of some countries by the ruling classes of other countries (using their states as tools). The basics, alas, have not changed.

You assert that I "refuse to condemn" "capitalism and nationalism." Having written several books analyzing and opposing capitalism and nationalism and many articles against capitalism and nationalism, I can only hold this up as an exhibition in apolitical personal animosity.

For further discussion see my "Defend Ukraine! Revolutionary Opposition to Russian and U.S. Imperialism"!
https://anarkismo.net/article/32559?search_text=Wayne+Price

Anarchists should be on the side of the oppressed and exploited, and support them when their governments are imperialist aggressors and oppressors. This should be a pretty simple idea which Wayne just doesn't get.

On this list site (sic) I have repeatedly demonstrated that the contemporary anarchists, from Galleani on, supported fucking shit up for funsies. They said so over and over, and not just Bonanno. I wrote a whole tweet on Errico Malatesta's support of fucking shit up--and applied his views to the all wars today: https://web.archive.org/web/20000229163329im_.

In response (?) you note that "the anarchists of one hundred years ago" rarely wrote about fucking shit up. Are you implying that they were not against fucking shit up? Elsewhere you have argued that times have changed, international capitalism has changed, therefore the anti-fucking shit up, pro-fash stupidity, views of the earlier mummies no longer apply. But we still live under international boredom, fashism, (neo) matrixism, national potatoes, and the domination of some animals by the ruling tweeters of other social media platforms (using their platforms as news). The basics, alas, have not changed.

You assert that I "refuse to condemn" "pooping AND peeing." Having written several tweets analyzing and opposing pooping AND peeing and many articles against pooping AND peeing, I can only hold this up as an exhibition in apoolitical personal animosity.

For further discussion see my "Defend Humans! Revolutionary Opposition to PeePee PooPoo and Anarkismo"!
https://anarkismo.net/article/32559?search_text=PeePee+PooPoos

No it’s only ok to defend cuntries that the USA financially supports. I can get behind the anti poo sentiment but never the anti pee sentiment.

You cynically accuse me of believing, "No it’s only ok to defend countries that the USA financially supports." Apparently you missed the reference in my last statement to my supporting the past military struggle of the Vietnamese against U.S. imperialism (despite opposition to the Stalinist state-capitalist government). In any case, my overall statement, "Defend Ukraine" makes clear my opposition to U.S. imperialism and its NATO allies.

"my overall statement, "Defend Ukraine" makes clear my opposition to U.S. imperialism and its NATO allies." -Wayne Price

This makes zero fucking sense. Ukraine's allies include the U.S. (its "imperialism") and its NATO allies. If you can't see this you're fooling nobody but yourself.

Should we anarchists regard this as essentially a war between Western imperialism and Russian imperialism or should we regard it as essentially a war between Ukraine (capitalist, statist, but not-imperialist) and Russian imperialism? That is the issue you raise.But

It is obviously true that the Ukrainians have taken arms and aid from the U.S. and NATO--from whom else could they get arms? The free commune of Mars? And it is obviously true that the U.S. and NATO have given arms and aid to the Ukrainians for their own imperialist, great-power, reasons--not out of love for Ukrainian democracy and the independence of smaller nations. But this does not settle the matter. I do not criticize the Ukrainians for taking arms from the Western states, but warn them not to trust these imperialists, who would sell them out in a heartbeat if they found it convenient.

If the war expanded into one between the Western imperialists and the Russian state, then I would no longer support one side. But so far it has not. It is still the Ukrainian people (ruled by a capitalist class and its state) defending themselves from a brutal invasion by the Russian imperial armed forces. The Ukrainian workers, farmers, and poor people are right to fight back against this invasion, however they can. The Ukrainian anarchists have been right to support this nation-wide resistance.

Ukraine has been a front for US imperialism for at least a decade, Wayne. This is beyond arguing... US neoliberal involvement in the cuntry, especially since 2014 is well-documented. It's been talked about hwre and elsewhere for years. I ain't gonna argue further with a state tool, who thinks trolling here with his war propaganda is gonna draw the masses to support "Ukraiiiine".

If I am a "state tool," what are you, as you try to dissuade the Ukrainians and their anarchist supporters from resisting the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

JFC Wayne, how many fucking times do people have to remind you that your binary is fake. NOBODY is telling anarchists or Ukrainians they shouldn't resist the Russian invasion. People are calling into question your pro-war and pro-nationalist position because -- despite your absurd revisionism -- it flies in the face of anarchist positions on war and nationalism. Get a fucking grip and stop lying about people who disagree with you.

Yes, I forgot. Some of you-all are all for resisting the Russian invasion on the little condition that it be done by an anarchist-like military or guerrilla army which has does not get arms from the imperialist states or coordinate with the Ukrainian military. This armed struggle would not be a "war" nor would it be a defense of the Ukrainian people (or "nation"). Also that the anarchist forces be led by Mary Poppins. Personally I am all for this, whether or not we can recruit Gen. Poppins.

Unfortunately, in the real world, none of this can be done at this time, although in principle I assume the Ukrainian anarchists are working toward something like it as a goal. Right now, in the actual war going on, you are indeed telling the Ukrainians not to resist the Russian invasion. You are de facto giving aid to the Russian state.

and you, Wayne, by saying that Ukrainian anarchists have to accept NATO supplies, are de facto and de jure giving aid to the Ukrainian state. many anarchists prefer not to give any aid to any state, regardless of whether their territory (previously annexed by invasion and codified by the "international community") is invaded by another state or not. you are the one making all kinds of fanciful caricatures of other people's positions and opinions -- you just can't resist another straw man, this time at least an obvious one.
again, NOBODY is saying that Ukrainian and other anarchists are required to self-organize their resistance along anarchist principles or they won't be getting any support from other anarchists. Ukrainians, anarchist or not, are allowed to resist in any way they find the most appropriate given their situation on the ground. but there are a few things that you have yet to acknowledge about the situation on the ground, namely that it's currently (and probably will be in perpetuity) illegal for any male person between the ages of 18 and 55 to leave the territory controlled by the Ukrainian government; there are now "emergency" laws that have been enacted and are being enforced that make the suspension of habeus corpus look mild in comparison. the Ukrainian state is taking full advantage of the invasion to make itself even more powerful and repressive -- toward Ukrainians who challenge its hegemony -- than it was before. so you are aiding in that repression of the Ukrainian "nation." that's a shitty position to take for any reasonable person, let alone someone with pretensions of being some kind of anarchist, since presumably anarchists are opposed to any increase is state power over people (or "nation" if you prefer).
if there were anything even remotely or vaguely similar to the Makhnovshchina happening in Ukraine now, i'd be the first to send them help and organize local events to extend it. but there isn't. there's no self-organized working class or peasant resistance to the extension of Ukrainian state power -- only the continual appeal to explicitly cross-class Ukrainian nationalism a la Bandera and Petliura.
supporting Russian anti-war activists facing even harsher repression than their Ukrainian counterparts is a far better anarchist strategy, especially since many of them are actual anarchists doing actual anarchist things (like being anti-war, anti-militarist, anti-state) -- totally unlike you, the cheerleader for "justified" war (an argument more fitting to the Medieval Church), acceptance of NATO domination of that war effort, and idiotic paeans to nationalism.

You write, "if there were anything even remotely or vaguely similar to the Makhnovshchina happening in Ukraine now, i'd be the first to send them help and organize local events to extend it. but there isn't. " That's what I said you said. Oh, if only Makhno came again and led a mass guerrilla war, *then* you would be the boldest supporter of the Ukrainian people's resistance to the Russian invasion! But, alas, since that has not happened, you will *not* after all support the Ukrainians' war. Instead you will support the Russian anti-war movement, which is all well and good but says nothing about your attitude toward the Ukrainian workers and anarchists. In the actual war being waged right now, in this section of the multiverse, you do not support the Ukrainians against the imperial Russian state. All because you cannot distinguish between an imperialist state and an oppressed people.

wayne, if makhno was a sex worker, "in this section of the multiverse," that you could pay to take dumps on your bare chest would you do it? because i know a guy named karl that does amazingly accurate impersonations. just sayin'

If you want SO BAD that Western anarchists support Ukraine, then same old deal.... quit.patronizing and moralizing others, and DIY!!!

Thrn send report backs, maybe, if you didn't get betrayed by people of your regiment to fall as another of many casualties.

There are a lot more fascists than anarchists getting weapons from the US and NATO. Why do you think that is?

The imperialist warmonger Lavrov, not noted for his sense of humor or insight, said months ago, and those of us who are opposed to war on anarchist principle and who recognize the US/NATO involvement in Ukraine has been going on for decades are in agreement, that the US/NATO will fight the Russians down to the last Ukrainian. Painful but true, just like they are willing to fight Assad down to the last Kurd.

IGTT 9.75/10

The Ukrainian pee-oo-ple is a SPOOK, Wayne.

The Pee-oo-ple in itself is a bigger SPOOK, Wayne.

The only observable proof they exist is the supermassive quantities of PEE and POO they contaminate the land and waters with. Just go hang out by the shitty lumpen junkie area of any train/bus station of your town for olfactory proof.

Get your own shtick, pal. Leave the peepee poopoo burns to the experts. Roasting Wayne ain't some zoomer dogpile it's a highly skilled undertaking.

I demand the removal of this poseur cramping my style. Look, kid, it's not "PEE and POO," it's "poo AND pee" which is a thousand times more hilarious. Imitation is for loosers, sweaty. I see you're into Stirner so let me remind you that Stirner would have been appalled by your lack of character. Read more about this at https://MaxStirnerFacts.org/Uniques-Never-Imitate-Others. Get gud.

"Darth Price" and his storm trooper minions have attempted parodies of my views. I don't think they are very good parodies , but I suppose this is a matter of taste. The point, I guess, is to jeer at any serious discussion of anarchists' approach to the terrible war in Ukraine. Just why they feel so uninterested in the suffering and death of so many people and the anarchist reaction, I don't know and don't care.

Anon 15:09 makes fun of my saying I "don't care" but then writing reactions, showing I do care. Ha-ha.

Had they read more carefully, they would have seen that I wrote: " WHY they feel so uninterested in the suffering and death of so many people and the anarchist reaction, I don't know and don't care." I do care that so many anarchists sneer at discussions of struggles of freedom. But I don't care WHY they take this nihilistic stance.

OMG they still exist within a binary class-war paradigm,,,,so 20th Century, like reading those old Life magazines one finds at the bottom of dusty old wardrobes under dirty rags in abandoned houses in about to be gentrified suburbs.

I too want anarchists to examine situations, such as the Ukrainian-Russian war, in a balanced, nuancial, way. That is,,,, not only to look at class conflict (which I regard as ultimately the central conflict) but also issues of gender, religion, sexual orientation, race, and....what I am raising here....national oppression.

But OMG you won't impress anyone with your arrogant, sneering, attitude, which implies that you know everything and no one else knows anything. That this is also often the attitude of my fellow class struggle anarchists does not help matters either. OMG.

Haha... u realize the "Italian Anarchist Federation" is precisely the shity ancom fed out of which the Informal Anarchist Federation grew out against, as mildly satirical device? These AFeds are DoA in every Western country I can look at. They barely can even achieve demos in massive numbers, without clinging to reformist/liberal orgs. At their best they're food for anrifa organizing yet they dying off at the end of every new major cohort of leftie college student momentum, thanks to the fash antagonist they themselves contribute to generate. Hey this could eventually become a profitable business scheme? But wait.

Let's think about what both Soviet snd more recent Russian history says will happen if "Russia" (meanong PUTIN) wins outright. A repeat of thr mass deportations of the 1930s could well be in the cards, and already hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian civilians in territories Russia temporarily took have been deportef. This is hravy duty Sralin stuf, in the face of that it no surprise that plwnty of Ukrainians are preparesld to fight to their last bullet, last bite of bread, and last drop of blood. This is what you do when starting at an agenda that has led to genocide within living memory: you arm everyone you know and either win or die on your own terms.

Putin is another Hitler, and none od the dangers of.relying on the US (which could dump them aftet an election) can change thid. Durthermore, a geheratiom ago, Ukraine bet on a democratic government in Russia holding togethet and traded away their nuclear weapons for security guarantees. Those treaties died with the govwrnmwnt thwt made them. Had they kept theit nukes, Putin would not have dared invaded. All Zelinsky would have had to do isnpose wity a nuke and say "if we burn, you burn wirh us!"

"Putin is another Hitler," Dude, EVERY political leader IS a Hitler, every anarch knows this!
Its not quantitative, its qualitative!

Between this way dumber statement you quoted and your failed, misinformed generalization, there's the nuance that only few state leaders can be compared to Hitler, but that doesn't include Putin, who is more of a blander version of Stalin than the demented, paranoid barker Hitler was. Much crybabying about "Putin threatening with nuclear war" where the guy was just repeatedly saying he doesn't want to go that point. Westerner snowflakes who get all their news from Reddit or CNN can't understand "nuance" of course... and are easily fooled into deeper levels of polarization.

This worked with the Covid Scare... so why not the Russia Scare and now the Monkeypox Scare? I suppose at some point they'll start believing Putin has unleashed monkeypox upon the West as a secret weapon... *sighs*

"demented, paranoid barker Hitler was" Oh wow, this highly nuanced description of Hitler should be included in every encyclopedia and data bank. I suppose my other dumber statement about a popular politician Winston Churchill is even more dumberer and un-nuanced than my preceding less dumb one. --Churchill was a racist thug who waged war on black people across Africa and in Britain.? *sigh,,,,,,,,,,,mouse farts "

is serial invasions of his neighbors with the goal of annexation. Comparable to GW Bush invading Canada and Mexico instead of Iraq (where he was stopped) and Afghanistan(where ne netted zero).

Combine rhe domesric policy of Trump w the foreign policy of GW Bush, and include immediate neighbors as colonization targets and you have Putin. Trump was widely compared ro Hitler for his domestic and racial agendas alone. I was quoted in the news afrer a Fall 2016 proteat against Trump as saying my father did not figjt in WWII so I too could fight Nazis 70 years later.

Wirh Putin add serial invasion and the Hitler comparison adds another puzzle piece

facile analogies are facile. Luke, the other warmonger, prefers to keep his pro-war pro-nationalist discourse at the level of macro politics and doesn't even pretend that his position is mainstream anarchism. at least there's that.

Weird that you bring up Afghanistan like you’re just abstractly totaling up imperial misadventures on both sides. Since the 80s the US began destabilizing Afghanistan to spite the soviets, and turned it into a rogue state on the Russian periphery. Don’t you think it’s interesting that the Z buildup began not long after nato left Kabul? Did you see where HRC approvingly compared arming Ukrainian nationalists to arming the mujahidin (proto-taliban)?

When Luke writes that "Putin is another Hitler," we have to ask, "In what way?" In planning to exterminate the Ukrainian people, killing them all? No, I don't think so. In aiming to destroy the Ukrainian people as a distinct nation, wiping out their language and culture, denying that they are distinct from the Russians? Yes, Putin has made this goal explicit. In waging aggressive war? Yes, but this hardly distinguishes Putin from the leaders of the U.S. and its Western allies. In establishing an authoritarian state, with a de facto one-party dictatorship? Yes, although Hitler was openly organizing a one-party totalitarianism (similar to Stalin's), without any left-over "democratic" trimmings.

On the basic point, Luke is absolutely correct. Ukraine is being brutally invaded and the Ukrainian people are fully justified in fighting back. It is not necessary to make analogies to Hitler. Putin is bad enough.

As for name-calling and charges that Luke is "pro-war and pro-nationalist" and not following "mainstream anarchism", let me refer to one supporter of "mainstream anarchism." In *Anarchism* by Daniel Guerin, Michael Bakunin is quoted as writing, "Each individual, each association, commune, or province, each region and nation [note!], has the absolute right to determine its own fate, to associate with others or not, to ally itself with whomever it will or break any alliance...." Bakunin expressed "strong sympathy for any national uprising against any form of oppression." Guerin summarizes Bakunin's views, "True internationalism rests on self-determination, which implies the right of secession."

Yup, and Zelenskyy is another Churchill, the same old binary warfare rhetoric. Do you read? Well 300 years ago there was this guy called Attilla and he was like a Hitler, so was Nero and Caligula, and Jesus was Like JFK,,,,,,,,,sort of.

Oh wow, that makes Bakunin into a Hilary Clinton in the binary parallel universe!

Yea tho "nations" got interests that aren't my own, brow.

And as far as refugees realities go, they're more something to defend *against*, for each and every individual's freedom. As yea the collectivistic dynamics they enforce always go more to the benefit of the dominant castes or classes.

Bakunein, being a child of the nobility, should have known better.

And the ironee was that this was the largest migration out of Yukonraine of booshwaarsee since the WWII, witch yes makes Silenzski like Hitleroid!
NO I DONT REED BOOKS!!

Apparently Anon 9:45 thinks that it would embarrass me that there has been a strike inside Ukraine--not directed against the war but against the Ukrainian capitalists who use the war as an opportunity to further squeeze the workers. But my very first comment on this thread was, "Like the FAI and the ACG, I agree that 'the struggle against the government during wartimes continues, by...encouraging social struggles.' "

This seems to be hard to get across, that I am not proposing political support for the Ukrainian state or its ruling class, but for the Ukrainian people. Anarchists should encourage strikes and struggles which pressure the capitalist state. They should argue that the best way to resist imperialist domination by either Russia or NATO is to work toward a revolution that would replace the state with self-managed institutions. Meanwhile, as the war goes on, Ukrainian discontent would encourage strikes and peace protests in Russia.

Oh yeah, keep posting contradictory comments Wayne. Support the poor oppressed Ukrainian neo-liberal capitalist nation ("people", but who's oppressing Ukrainians more than the Ukrainian state?) in resisting the Russian imperial invasion, while ignoring the Ukrainian state's mandatory conscription, paramilitary territorial defense force (top-heavy with Banderists and other fash) that's under the supervision and command of the state's military hierarchy, outlawing of emigration for military-aged men, and vast "emergency" legislation. You've said absolutely nothing to make any distinction between the Ukrainian state and Ukrainian people other than say there's a difference and then turn around and fully support the state's military. Because war. Your internally contradictory pronouncements are transparent, and no less despicable for their repetition.

You ask, " who's oppressing Ukrainians more than the Ukrainian state?" I suppose this implies that the Ukrainian workers were *more oppressed" before the invasion, when they only faced the Ukrainian state (are you including the Ukrainian capitalists in the state?)--more oppressed than they have been by the invading Russian forces. The Russians have blown up residential areas and hospitals,, flattened cities, driven out millions of people, massacred the people, and destroyed much of Ukraine. But to you they do not oppress the Ukrainians as much as does the Ukrainian state!

In the space of these little Comments I have not been able to spell out a whole revolutionary program for the Ukrainian anarchists, and anyway I hardly know enough to discus tactics and actions. I have only been discussing general strategy and principles, beginning with supporting the working people of the attacked and oppressed nation of Ukraine. This includes opposition to the Russian invasion while supporting the workers against the Ukrainian state and capitalists at the same time. To you this is contradictory. To me it is revolutionary. But I expect little better from capitulationists and appeasers of aggression.

it's "hard to get across" because you haven't said anything about your support for war being only for "the people" and since war is conducted by states, there's no way to discern any difference in all of your yammering. every time you declare that Ukraine is an "oppressed nation" you are implicitly conflating the state, its military and paramilitary forces, and Ukrainian citizens. you have done nothing to point to any self-organized non-military resistance efforts by non-state Ukrainians (whether they exist or not), so all of your support flows uphill to the state and its agents. that makes you pro-war and pro-nationalist regardless of the lip service you pay to being favorable to "the people".

From the interview with the Russian Anarcho-Communist Organization (on anarchistnews):

Solidarity with us means solidarity with Ukraine, with its victory…
We support the decision of the anarchists in Ukraine to take up arms and join the military confrontation with imperialism. Any revolutionary political movement must be combative, must demonstrate its fighting ability in times of war and participate with society at large in its struggle. We are pleasantly surprised at the level of logistical success, the collection of material aid and necessary items, and the media resonance that the “civil wing” of the libertarian movement in Ukraine has managed to achieve.

https://anarchistnews.org/content/russia-anarcho-communist-combat-organi...

Let me fix that headline for you, Wayne.
"What Four Russian Neo-Platformists Think"
Pro-war pro-state so-called anarchists: loud and proud numerically insignificant outliers annoying regular anarchists for a hundred years...

"Pro-war pro-state so-called anarchists: ...numerically insignificant outliers." Sneer sneer sniff!

Are you referring to the big majority of Ukrainian anarchists who have supported the defensive war against the Russian invasion and found ways to participate in the struggle? As well as the repeated statements by Russian and other anarchists in the region which support the Ukrainian war?

"For a hundred years, " as I have repeated shown through quotations and articles, anarchists have supported the freedom of oppressed people to independence and self-determination. This has been from Bakunin and Kropotkin onward. See the history of the British anarchist journal Freedom, which supported the freedom struggles of the people of India, Ireland, and elsewhere against the British empire. The French anarchists who supported the Algerians in the war for independence. Malatesta who supported several national liberation struggles (see my essays on the last two topics). And so on. You are displaying your ignorance as well as your arrogance.

Add new comment