A political and personal statement as well as a review of our solidarity work around the war in Ukraine so far.

From Anarchist Black Cross Dresden

Long English Version

Since the first day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we have been working with friends on the ground as well as comrades from Belarus, Russia and Poland. This has been made possible by thousands of donations from people around the world who have understood the importance of international solidarity at this critical moment. And for this we would like to thank all those who responded to the calls and provided help, not only with money, but also with direct actions, logistics and media work.

We are partly from these places and partly we are just very connected personally and politically with the region, the political events, the people and their struggles. We see ourselves as anarchists. 

In almost nine months of organizing, we have had many different challenges that have shaped our work with fellow anarchists in Ukraine, and we would like to share some of these challenges with you as an important critical assessment of what has been achieved by the international anarchist solidarity movement during this time. We know that this text could be used by some opponents of supporting anarchists in Ukraine to discredit the movement. But we believe that sustainable solidarity work is only possible by overcoming challenges and not by hiding facts from comrades for a convenient version of history. Despite all the criticism, we believe that the support of the anarchist movement in Ukraine is a crucial objective in order to strengthen the anti-authoritarian part of society.

Our life is full of contradictions and will remain so as long as there is exploitation, violence, oppression, imperialism, capitalism, patriarchy…. exists. That means in our political action there are contradictions, there is no absolute truth in what we do. Nevertheless, we are active. We try to reflect our actions and to legitimize them for ourselves. We have done that many times in the last 9 months when there was time. We have been desperate, angry, sad, determined. We’ve been criticized for what we do. We have received positive feedback for what we are doing. We have tried to follow the political debates. And partly we were positively surprised, because the anarchist/antiauthoritarian and left movement has shown itself more open to perspectives from Ukraine. At the same time, we noticed that a lot of Russian propaganda is still shared and narratives from 2014 are still held on to. 40 years of anti-communist and anti-Soviet propaganda in the Federal Republic of Germany seem to still lead to the fact that when the German government criticizes Russia, some leftists reflexively have to defend Russia. 

Because of the connections we have built up over the last few years with comrades in Ukraine, we were able to quickly build up a solidarity network. Talks in the first weeks after the invasion were mainly about getting things from the long list of necessities and pushing the solidarity work further in the hope of stopping the Russian advance. Political debates did not take place because all the activists involved in the mobilization simply did not have the time/energy.

In the last 10 years we have seen and felt what it means when this so-called Russian world takes more and more space. Repression, torture, persecution in Russia and Belarus led to new waves of emigration of activists. The cooperation of the security authorities in these countries restricted the freedom of movement even more. Most recently, the suppression of the uprising in Belarus with the help of Russia. At the same time, Ukraine remained a place where people found refuge from repression, an intermediate space where people could meet without visas and fear of repression from East and West. Now this place is also threatened by Russian imperialism, the space of refuge is no longer a safe place, projects and contexts destroyed, cities bombed, people killed. The “Russian world” continues to spread. For us it is therefore absolutely clear that even if we as anarchists reject the war in the name of a state, we grant people a right to self-defense. 

We have no pragmatic or intellectual distance to this war. We do not get bogged down in geostrategic discussions and analyze the roulette of possibilities. We have already followed our friends and comrades who have asked us for support in preparation for the expected expansion of the war. People demand to take a stand against the war, we do, but what that means in reality is very different for people. We would not demand that the people fighting in Ukraine against Russia should surrender or agree to give over the occupied territories in ceasefire agreements. That would mean in consequence that Putin achieves what he wants. Therefore, we do not understand these demands. We also do not think that Western values are being defended in Ukraine, because these supposed values are characterized by capitalism, racism, post-colonialism, exploitation and many other aspects. For us, support in this context means a struggle for liberation from Russian imperialism. It’s about freedom, it’s not about nationalism, about a state, it’s about the Russian world not spreading to Ukraine.

We have been doing support work since February 24, 2022. There was an appeal for donations, delivery of equipment, medicines, medical equipment, humanitarian aid, cars, several convoys. People who wanted to support on site were taken there. There were many internal debates about the development, suggestions, criticism, negotiations. Everything happened extremely quickly. In the beginning, we just met every day, made phone calls, organized … 

Activists in Ukraine had prepared for the war, made workshops, discussed strategies, weighed possibilities of action. It was clear that people will stay, organize. They will fight against the “Russian world”, defend their community.  There are many different motivations that move people in such a moment. 

Operation Solidarity was created and worked under the adrenaline of the first weeks. An anti-authoritarian unit was formed, in which activists with different perspectives from all over the world found each other.  In the spring of 2022, this anti-authoritarian unit received the greatest support. This unit was organized within the framework of territorial self-defense and was responsible for defending the Kiev region against advancing Russian forces. However, when Moscow announced its withdrawal from the region, serious problems arose with the local command, as more and more people were ready to go to the front and were not given this opportunity. International fighters who joined the unit lost access to weapons and were simply “deposited” in one of the bases of territorial self-defense, being promised, among other things, a residence permit and integration into the Ukrainian Army. These promises were broken, and all foreign fighters left the Territorial Self-Defense, while Ukrainian anarchists moved to different parts of the country to continue the resistance against the Russian invasion. This marked the end of anti-authoritarian unit and the transition to the current state of affairs – smaller groups of anarchists* and anti-fascists* are now fighting on different parts of the front lines and participating in various military groups. 

Within Operation Solidarity, there were also many problems, debates, disputes over direction, problematic behavior, and claims to power. Eventually the initiative disbanded, the self-proclaimed founder stole 20,000€, and the Solidarity Collectives initiative formed from the remaining people.

The situation within the anarchist and anti-authoritarian movement in Ukraine was problematic before the war, there were conflicts like probably everywhere and different people didn’t want to have anything to do with each other. With the beginning of the war, on the one hand people have reunited, but on the other hand others have explicitly not cooperated politically. Many activists had previous conflicts that were put aside for a while. But over time, these contradictions began to resurface. 

It is not really imaginable under what conditions people organize in war, discuss differences, try to solve conflicts. People, in different cities, who had not worked together before, tried to do that in online meetings. Activists have participated in the initiatives so far. But many have also left them again, are burned out, have a different focus, are tired of the political disputes that add to the difficult situation and work, and for many other reasons.

We have always been involved in these debates and tried to contribute our perspectives. For us, too, this was very exhausting, often demotivating and cost us a lot of energy, in addition to our actual tasks. We were on the verge of quitting several times. But our responsibility towards the donors is very high and we try to be as transparent as possible. In fact, none of us could even imagine a fundraising campaign on this scale. So we have to justify ourselves not only to ourselves, but to everyone who followed our call for donations. And we wanted and want so much to strengthen, support, keep alive the Ukrainian anarchist/anti-authoritarian movement. 

For us it was clear that we support everyone: those who decide to leave Ukraine and those who stay, whether in Ukraine, Russia or Belarus. There are people who want to defend themselves with a gun against Russian imperialism. At the same time, there are many people in Ukraine who do not want to do this, but organize and support themselves elsewhere, because they do not want to, cannot or are not allowed to leave the country. For us it is unclear why there is a playing out of these points of view in the political debates.

Challenge in the distribution and accounting of equipment as well as in the question of “ownership

In our anarchist vision of collective organizing, our perspective was clear – the donations and all the equipment organized from it should also be collective. The reality of war, however, painted a different picture. 

In the first few weeks, some of the comrades asked us who would get support and how the equipment would be distributed. Some of the anarchist comrades were very clear in their needs and sent a list of required equipment, while others were modest and did not ask for anything except 1-2 items. In some cases, due to lack of contacts in Ukraine itself, people did not even know about the possibilities of getting support from Western comrades. This was also related to the fact that many anarchists and anti-authoritarian activists in Ukraine decided to go alone or with their small group. Some of them were already in contested areas and were difficult to reach.

In general, the situation was like this for several months until the Russian advance in many directions stopped and the comrades got some time to talk to the organizers of the infrastructure in Kiev/Lviv and other cities.

One of the first discussions that began in April was the question of various groups in the West as to who was actually responsible for the equipment sent to Ukraine. Should the tens of thousands of euros worth of equipment go to individuals and that’s it, or should organized anarchist groups take care of what goes to whom in order to have a fair distribution of resources as well as an overview of the collective property bought with the anarchist community’s money. This discussion became even more complicated because the equipment brought to Ukraine was often allocated to different parts of the Ukrainian army, which was problematic for us because we wanted these resources to be available to the Ukrainian anarchist movement and not to the Ukrainian state.

In the end, the discussion did not bring so many results. Many comrades felt that the support should go directly to the militants, often on the grounds that otherwise they would be unsafe to use. Another problem that emerged from this discussion is the power dynamics of war. Many activists* who have not joined military formations see themselves in a supportive role that in many cases resembles simple charity work that many Western NGOs are currently doing. The political side of resistance to the war often blurs with groups that abandon certain political principles, such as equality and participation, in favor of quick and pragmatic work. In addition, it has been difficult to oppose the structural organization of the war, i.e., the army, precisely because there are no independent units.

Due to the conflicts within the movement described above, it is also understandable that it was difficult to create an infrastructure stable enough to work with all the resources that were handed over to Ukraine. At the moment, after all these months of organizing, the situation is better.

Comrades who might find themselves in future conflicts that require a large amount of resources should take into account the importance of the issue of collective ownership and management of all these resources on an anti-authoritarian basis.

It is worth noting that some of the people who received solidarity from the anarchist movement had a hoarder mentality, trying to get as much equipment as possible, even in situations where it was not needed. This attitude was not clear to us, especially in the first month of the invasion. In general, a lot of support was provided on the basis of trust – it is hard for people who are not fighting themselves to understand what equipment is needed, let alone in situations where the person’s life is in danger. We would like to have a movement where everyone is honest and works as equals. However, this is often not the case, so it is important to build structures that are not only based on trust, but also make it difficult to abuse solidarity work for personal interests. Formalizing certain processes as well as holding all comrades accountable would definitely help in such situations.

Who fights where with whom?

Let’s start with a very simple part – for security reasons we will not name the geographical locations of the anarchist groups currently fighting in Ukraine. You can find out by following some of the fighters on the social networks, if the people/groups have published this information. like blackheadquarter

For us, from the beginning of the war, it was important which units the comrades joined. In 2014, when the first phase of the war began, some Ukrainian antifascists and anarchists decided to join the voluntary fighting groups organized by the political organizations of fascists and neo-Nazis. At that time, the argumentation was that this was the only way to repel the Russian troops in the Donbass, since there were no leftist or anarchist volunteer battalions. So the question was whether this dynamic would be repeated in 2022.

Of course, the situation has changed since the beginning of the war. The Ukrainian army tried to limit the political organization and influence of the far-right groups within the military. It is important to point out here that this influence has traditionally been exaggerated by Putin supporters. We can note that the political right did not benefit from the 2014 war effort in the last Ukrainian elections. 

But at the same time, the reality remains. Fascists are much better organized in the ranks of the Ukrainian army than leftists or anarchists, who traditionally avoid military service and stay away from the state war effort. Thus, when the invasion began, many comrades found themselves in a situation where it was only possible to participate in the war against Russia within the Ukrainian military to a very limited extent without having contact with neo-Nazis. This means that even if you are in local territorial self-defense, you can end up in the same unit with local fascists who join the war for different reasons.

Some comrades attempts to get a place in the military ranks brought them directly to units directly connected with Ukrainian fascist groups. And we are talking about groups like Right Sector or other political organizations. For us, this is an extremely problematic situation, because some antifascists and anarchists are now, in one way or another, becoming forces that support the development of far-right politics in Ukraine. For the fascists at the moment it is not really important to recruit only fascist sympathizers as they need bigger number to grow military power. However, such decisions create a certain imbalance in political representation within the army.

This situation has triggered one of the first warning signals for our solidarity. Do we want to support individuals or smaller groups fighting in the war within the right-wing formations? And the answer is clear: No. For us it is unacceptable to join the fascists, even in the war against Putin. Many of the comrades who made this decision had other possibilities to join the struggle, but they chose the right-wing because these groups offer the best “social package” and sometimes promise a certain autonomy for the anarchists or antifascists. The more people join these units, the more resources and publicity they receive and attract more recruits, as they have better equipment and social support than other military structures. This is a dangerous spiral that is actually supporting the growth of right-wing influence within the military efforts of Ukrainian society at the moment.

Unfortunately, as the discussion about this development continued, some of the comrades went into denial mode and tried to downplay the political organization of Azov, Right Sector and other fascist military-political groups. If we deny the fact that Ukrainian fascists are organizing in this war, we create a situation where ignoring their power can lead to very serious consequences for Ukrainian anarchists and antifascists when the Russian regime is destroyed.

Not everyone agrees with us. In fact, many comrades who are in Ukraine right now believe that support should continue even if people make mistakes in their decisions within the military. This creates a complicated situation in which continued work is severely hampered by the lack of a common perspective. For us, the solidarity work around the war in Ukraine is political and primarily focused on supporting the progressive forces in this war so that there is more freedom and equality when people win. We do not support everyone without looking at the political goals behind involvement in the war.

The more people die and the more damage the invaders do to Ukrainian society, the more we understand how politics can take a back seat to organizing as people are willing to make greater compromises to actually crush Putin and his armies.

So what is to be done now?

As the challenges grow and the political discussions continue to fail, we know how important it is to keep going. Giving up on the struggle of comrades in Ukraine and saying that it is not shiny enough for Western anarchism is not our way. We believe that support and donations must continue even in the face of criticism. We remain companions even if we argue with each other on different political issues.

At the same time, it is important for us to create structures that include this criticism in the support. We do not want to decide for the entire anarchist movement which groups and individuals exactly should be supported. Rather, after voicing all concerns, we have decided to create a differentiation of donations to ensure that you can decide for yourselves who you want to support. From now on, donations with the keyword “Ukraine” will be used to support only those companions who are not fighting in any units affiliated with Ukrainian fascists or neo-Nazis. If you want to donate to anti-fascists and anarchists in right-wing units despite all contradictions, just write it in the donation note.

Apart from that, all donations sent to us will continue to be used for the comrades who had to leave Ukraine because of the war, as we did before. We will continue to cooperate with Solidarity Collectives as our main point of reference in Ukraine in solidarity work, despite some political differences. We believe that such complicated and critical situations as the war require political perspectives for our movement. Therefore, we see criticism as an essential part of our movement. But let’s not mix criticism and reproduction of the state propaganda from Moscow. We must also not allow criticism and doubt to make us unable to act. 

We would also like to call on our comrades to continue to follow closely what is happening in Eastern Europe, because the political struggles there could shape what the whole of Europe will look like in the coming decades. And don’t forget to donate and encourage people around you to donate. The Ukrainian people are now in a position to resist the Russian invasion, thanks to massive solidarity from all over the world, and the anarchist movement is part of that solidarity.

Until the Kremlin burns down
Anarchist Black Cross Dresden

There are 75 Comments

never had a hot war in my area so this might be a tad naive, but why give to people joining state militaries? i thought anarchists were against the state? and, is it a surprise that joining the military puts one in contact with fascists?

supporting anarchists in Ukraine (or Russia) seems like a no brainer. supporting anyone joining the state military seems very odd for anarchists. telling these groups apart from thousands of miles away seems almost impossible.

A very good report about anarchist Ukrainian-solidarity efforts, which honestly discusses difficulties which have arisen. Despite problems, and the need to maneuver among the the various capitalist and statist forces, these comrades have done fine work.

So anarchist politics are being sacrificed to the war effort, a large amount of money that was given to this organization disappeared, but if you want, they still offer to transfer your money to anarchists who are literally fighting alongside fascists. But this is a “progressive” war effort for “more freedom and equality.”

Did I miss anything important?

Over 8 years since maidan, with plenty of time to observe civil war, pogroms and the rise of fascist movements, a major part of the anarchist movement has decided- we just take up arms alongside Nazis, to fight and die by their side as partisans of the Ukrainian nation.

This should cloud the hearts of all who claim to follow the Beautiful Idea. Whatever your explanation is for why it’s happening.

And what, then? The billionaire gangster interests behind Brussels and Washington D.C. will thrive like they haven't in decades, having a slumber party at assigning each other apiece of the giga pie formerly known as "Russian Federation".

So much for "anti-imperalism", geniuses!

I'm reading this in the context where NATO leader Stoltenberg just said today that Europeans gotta suffer MORE, in order to prevent Russia from winning over Ukraine... which would mean, for some reason, a threat to "freedum" in Europe.

These are people who, also like that xenophobe jingoist Gen. Breedlove, claimed, under record, that Ukraine is the front for saving "Europe". This is Soft Hitler right there... right under your nose.

As The Jarach said it's just another statist ideology. If Putin goes bye bye and Navalny gets in and Russian becomes a Western Client state again I'm not sure why @s should lose sleep over this. It's like cynics cheering on Hannibal against Rome. What deal is it to the @ if a big leviathan gets eaten up by a bigger neo roman model. At the end of the day the goal is to still erode the new Rome and having Russia in the fold as a cuck state doesn't really alter the agenda of anarchy all that much. If anything the on the ground situation might be preferable as @s are fairly used to Roman control state terrain as opposed to a more blood regime model which Russia clearly is.

This certainly should not make one a cheerleader for Ukraine however.

I concede, these.are legit questions.

Answered with my true worry... being that while the takeover of Russia by Western capitalists isn't much of a big concern to anarchists, the near-certainty that Russian power gangs will not just let go of their fiefs and will defend their regime with nukes... that is of concern to a lot of people, including but not limited to anarchists.

Yes, many words in the political lexicon are already exclusively of the binary statist propaganda double-speak category in their linguistical interpretation, and "anti-imperialism" and all its variants assume certain geographical ownership and sanctity from a state authority. I will even venture to say that the word "diplomacy" reaks of foul binary duplicity in the competition for power!

SE immediately leaps to the conflict between the US and Russia. As they should know, "anti-imperialism" does not refer to the competition among these or other imperialist states, but to opposition to imperial domination of a great power over weaker, oppressed, peoples.

Why care about anti-imperialism? Because a people (here the Ukrainians, but also Tibetans, Palestinians, Uyghurs, Chechens, Kurds, Afghans, Puerto Ricans, etc., etc.) is being denied their freedom to chose their independence, their social system, and their political system. Because they are being massacred, their cities and towns destroyed, their land occupied, their freedoms and lives being taken away. And anarchists are against these things, or at least some of us are.

Why care about anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-ecological disaster, anti-militarism, and so on? Are they also "just another statist ideologies"?? Is nothing to be supported but full-blown anarchism (of whatever weird version SE advocates)? How comfortable, how heartless.

This reaks of foul binary duplicity in the competition for power!
How comfortable, how heartless!

Yep, crude binary thinking. It's a consistent trait of cold war leninoid Anti-Imps, as if Kurdish, Puerto Rican, and other nationalists didn't want to create their own states as an expression of their "independence" from imperial powers. Every "independence" movement for the past hundred years has had nation building as an integral aspect of their struggles, and after WWII many were successful in creating over half of the member states in the United Damnations. Anarchists refuse (or at least should refuse) to impute anti-statist ideas and programs to Anti-Imp movements; we take them at their word that they want states and governmental institutions of their own (or in some cases integrated into the institutions of the imperial state that dominates a particular people's territory). This will always include some kind of police force as well as penal mechanisms for dealing with non- or anti-nationalist groups. Wayne and all the other right-wing sozis cheering the Ukrainian military and completely authoritarian paramilitaries continues to invoke the pro-US canard that Putin's invasion and imperial ambitions (which are despicable on their own terms) were unprovoked -- while people to his left recognize that anti-Russian pro-western factions within the Ukrainian ruling class have been courted and groomed by NATO and the CIA for three decades (since the collapse of the Soviet Union). History spans decades, but for ammosexuals like Wayne, there are only disconnected and decontextualized moments that require attention.

Oh yeah... The (insert ethno-nationalist made up crap) people! But what about the Eritrean Muslim Black people gathering every Saturday evening for religious chants somewhere at the uni campus... they're not part of any of your "people", since they don't have a national bullshit representation.

But what if there's no "people"? Aaaaaaaw! So this would mean there's really just, people. Like individuals, connected to others in some ways, living more or less accordingly to cultures, rituals and views, not requiring damn flags to exist!

LeWayne is back and bolder than ever in his demented embrace of national political spooks.

"Why care about ... anti-militarism, and so on?"

You mean to tell me Wayne "War Machine" Price has figured out how to be pro-War but anti-militarism? Seems dubious.

Also, does Wayne's "a people" include the fascists and other proclaimed enemies of anarchy just because they happen to be living withing the boundaries of imaginary lines drawn on a map by the state?

Also, this is not a war against a defined ethnicity / oppressed people as in your false example of "Tibetans, Palestinians, Uyghurs," etc. This is a war of states and power and resources and regions. Stop trying to make you bootlicking of one state over another appear like compassion, Wayne.

Here's to all of us hoping Wayne and SirEingize end this mind numbing exchange with a tasty murder suicide.

Cheers

Is that you are talking about ancestral people vs a state entity. Now there's something of a tension between anarchy and ancestry but there can at least be something concrete to defend. I do not think this entails anti-imperialism which is largely created for and by statists or statists to be.

The antis that you rolled off don't necessarily have a problematic to @ and are uncontroversial. Some anti positions however have problematic associations in terms of what they attract. AI is one in that its alumni includes people like Lenin. I would also include antfa among the non legitimate anti positions for who constructed and who is attracted to it. If you are anti-state and anti-military/war you don't really need to be anti-imperialist. Ditto for anti-authoritarian vs anti-fascist.

The irony of all you anti-anti-imperialists, is that most of those state socialists who currently regard themselves as "anti-imperialists" agree with you!

By focusing on "imperialism" (above and beyond capitalism) they declare their main opposition to the U.S. imperialist state (which is, they correctly say, the main, most powerful imperialism on earth, even if declining in this period). Therefore they declare their support for any force which opposes U.S. imperialism--including other imperialist states--such as Russia (or China).

In this war, these official "anti-imperialists" oppose the Ukrainians because they are being supported (for its own reasons) by the US and its imperialist allies. And because their victory would weaken the Russian state, which they favor as an opponent of the US imperialists.

And so you anarchist opponents of "anti-imperialism" are in agreement with most of the Left "anti-imperialists."You both reject support of the Ukrainians and oppose the Ukrainians getting arms and aid from the Western imperialists. Neither of you support national self-determination for the Ukrainians. While, as anarchists, at least you do not support Putin's state, but in practice your opinions would result in the defeat of the Ukrainian people.

Wayne doubling down on his facile binaries, the mirror image of the "anti-anti-imperialists" he imagines to be real. Maybe one day Wayne will wake up and understand that actual anarchists are principled opponents of war (except the class war), that actual anarchists since the end of WWII have been and continue to be extremely skeptical of projects for national self-determination because of the nationalism and explicit programs of state building, and that leninoid Cold War Anti-Imperialism is the other socialism of fools.

"Maybe one day Wayne will wake up and understand that actual anarchists are principled opponents of war (except the class war)," Again and again I have pointed out (with many references and quotations) that "actual anarchists" have supported wars of self-determination and national liberation. I have quoted Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, etc., and referring to the French anarchists who supported the Algerians and the British anarchists who supported the Irish and Indians--even as they maintained their opposition to the state and nationalist ideology. And I have pointed out that most Ukrainian anarchists support the Ukrainian people against the Russian invaders, as do most Russian, Czech, Belarusian, and Polish anarchists. None of which proves that all these anarchists were/are correct; but it does prove that "actual anarchists" have supported popular wars by oppressed people.

So your arrogant statement is just bullshit, based on a "principled" refusal to learn anarchist theory and history.

Curiously, you continue to ignore the changed positions and programs of national liberation struggles between the time of actual empires (Austro-Hungarian, Russian, Ottoman, British, and French -- roughly the 1860s through the end of WWI -- the time when your Big Three actual anarchists were active) to the time of the first three's disintegration. By the mid-1920s, after various "successful" such struggles, the mainstream anarchist position relative to them shifted, especially once Lenin and Co articulated (after being soundly and correctly denounced by Luxemburg and others on their left [all those grouped together as suffering from an infantile disorder a few years later]) a very specific sort of Anti-Imperialism as a part of the Comintern dictates, ie, that it would embrace ethno-nationalism and marxism (in a heady brew of internal contradiction and cross-class collaboration according to left communists and anarchists and independent revolutionaries whose radicalism demanded class loyalty and internationalism).

French anarchists were split around the Algerian war, as you would know if you'd bothered to read David Berry's fine study instead of only relying on Porter's.

Your declaration that I have refused to learn anarchist theory and history is laughable on its face, especially considering that I haven't had to disentangle my anarchist positions from the idiocies of whatever strain of trotskyism formed your political foundations. Your right-wing positions are an embarrassment.

To my account of the many actual anarchists who have supported wars of national liberation, you respond, Times have changed. And so they have in many ways (end of most formal--colonial--empires, rise and fall of the Soviet Union, fall of British world domination, rise of US world domination and its current decline, rise of China, and so forth and so on).

But imperialism (mainly in the form of neo-colonialism) is not dead. Domination of weaker and poorer nations by richer and more powerful nations and their ruling classes--is not dead.

You seem to think that imperialism is over. You refer to "the time of actual empires... through the end of WWI " I disagree. There is still imperialism and the exploitation of the world's working people through the world market and political and military power. That the Communist International took up the issue, in their own way, does not prove that imperialism was dead.

Indeed, what could prove the reality of imperialism better than the current war!? Here is imperialist Russia, trying to turn the poorer and weaker country of Ukraine into a colony by force. Here are the Ukrainian people trying to resist the imperial invasion. Here are the US and its allies, trying to get the most out of the situation for their own imperial benefit. Yet you seem to deny the relevance of "imperialism" and "national self-determination"!

You point out that "French anarchists were split around the Algerian war." This is true. Which only proves that, while all French anarchists opposed French imperialism , some French anarchists (but not all) were in solidarity with the Algerian (and Indochinese) struggles for national liberation. Which was my point, since you insist, ignorantly and arrogantly , that no actual, real, anarchists supported such struggles (this was well after WW1). Yes, some did. (I have surveyed anarchists' response to the U.S.-Vietnam war, coming to the same conclusion.)

Yes, I have learned from unorthodox-dissident Trotskyism, and from other sources, including Deweyan radical-liberalism, non-anarchist decentralism (Borsodi), radical pacifists (Goodman, Muste), radical psychoanalysis, Malcolm X, and others. One of the advantages of anarchism is that it is not bound to a canon of theory written by a single genius. This makes me no less an anarchist, if not necessarily an "orthodox anarchist," whatever that would be. So I do not criticize you for disagreeing with Bakunin, or Malatesta, about national self-determination. You may be right and they wrong. I do criticize you for denying that real anarchists have had this programmatic belief and that anyone who disagrees with *you* is not a real, genuine, "anarchist."

This is what your stronger weaker nonsense amounts to in the end. Even Bakunin(who started off a Slavic Nationalist) cooled that down over time and focused on going after the state as such. Unlike noble Mike you have far LESS of an excuse in the 21st fucking century for carrying on with out of power non-hegemonic leviathan weak statism.

No one where likes Russia(unlike those who do who-like 'em or not-fall under the anti-imperialist banner) There are ways you can be against the war without being a Ukraine flagger. More shooting up recruitment centres come to mind. Hell you can have operatives who do the Uncle Ted 'hit where it hurts' tactic like what happened in the US recently. Non of this requires selective statist anti-imperialist cheer leading.

Instead of waging a defensive war against the Russians, SE has another idea: "There are ways you can be against the war without being a Ukraine flagger. More shooting up recruitment centres come to mind. "

In Russia, some people have shot up recruitments centers (and even shot a recruiter). Good for them. But this is in Russia. What does SE propose that Ukrainian people do? Sneak into Russia to shoot up their recruitment centers? Since he is against both sides, the invaded and the invader, he may also be in favor of Ukrainians shooting up their own recruitment stations! As an alternative to war, these are not great ideas. They result in Russia winning.

Here's how these debates have gone. Someone declares that real anarchists do not support wars by oppressed peoples (nations, communities, collectives). This means that I am wrong and not a true, good, anarchist. SE declares, "Even Bakunin... over time...focused on going after the state as such."

The next step is I give examples and quotations showing that the "classical anarchists" (Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, and so on) did indeed support national rebellions, even as they continued to "focus on going after the state." Even Bakunin after he became an anarchist. And that this continued, up to today, when most (not all) anarchists in Ukraine, Russia,and Belarusia support the Ukrainian side.

Faced with this reality, you folks do not respond rationally, saying yes, Wayne you are right on that point, but it doesn't really prove that these anarchists were/are correct in supporting national self-determination. Instead, you collapse into cussing, name calling and red-baiting. (I am not so much pointing to SE, who tends to collapses into obscure theorizing.)

BTW, if anyone is interested in my discussion of how the French anarchists dealt with the Algerian War of Independence, see:
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/24619?search_text=Wayne+Price
Anarchists and the French-Algerian War
Book review of David Porter's "Eyes to the South; French Anarchists and Algeria"

Also raised in these debates is the argument that maybe Bakunin and Malatesta and other anarchists supported oppressed nations in their rebellions--but Times Have Changed.

To which I reply, this is true, but that we still have imperialism, world capitalism and its market, oppression of some countries by others, and so on, all of which may be seen in operation in the Ukrainian war. The fundamental issues have not changed, alas.

Wayne continues to promote the stupid non-anarchist lie that a people is the same as their country. Real anarchists know this to be a thoroughly false construct, a lie perpetrated by the ruling class to make them forget that they're being exploited by rich fuckers who happen to speak the same language. For all their faults (and there are a hundred and one at least), the Wobblies had it right when they declared that "the working class and the employing class have nothing in common." This is the basis of all anti-state radicalism, and is not exclusive to the IWW, but it serves as a required reminder to ammosexuals and other pro-Ukrainian nationalists masquerading as anarchists. Fuck all that right-wing socialist pro-war nonsense. Fuck Leninist Anti-Imperialism, the other Socialism of Fools.

"the Wobblies had it right when they declared that "the working class and the employing class have nothing in common.""

Yes, they had it right 100 years ago.

This is 100 years later. Social dynamics are no longer divided through the lines of 2 or 3 classes, unless you consider mega-billionaires to be the "rich" class... but that Wobbly analysis doesn't work here since there are far more employers than these fucks. Even my local nonprofits are employers. In some cases the "employees" and "employers" got no line of distinction between them as they'll hang out together and be friends.

Let's rethink your thing as a more relativistic approach... of have mores vs have lesses, not haves vs have nots.

You can take your "subtle" class analysis to your three friends and impress them. My point is that nationalism is a cross-class swindle, not that there aren't more class categories than worker and owner. Learn to read with context.

reading comprehension fail once again, Wayne. nowhere have i or any other commentator here asserted that imperialism is over. it's the same tactic of strawmanning you and the other ammosexuals use when alleging that there are anarchists who propose that Ukrainians not resist the Russian invasion. nobody has done this. nobody. you're a fucking asshole for constantly repeating this lie.

well anyway... let's take a closer look at imperialism and Anti-Imperialism. you assert that "Domination of weaker and poorer nations by richer and more powerful nations and their ruling classes--is not dead." again, nobody is saying anything different. but what you imply by this statement is that this is what imperialism is. but that's false. the imperialism of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and even the minuscule German and Belgian empires weren't examples of those "more powerful nations" dominating "weaker and poorer nations" -- that imperialism was characterized by more powerful nations dominating (with one or two counter examples) the *non-state* and *non-national* territories of mostly African people; the Ottomans were dominating the mostly tribal regions of the Near East, and the French and British, aside from their African adventures, were also busy in Asia, as were the Japanese and Russians -- but, significantly, nobody claiming Chinese territory. if you want to insist that imperialism is the domination of weaker nations by stronger nations, then that's another one of those leninoid innovations used to prop up Comintern Anti-Imperialism. the reason the Berlin Conference of 1884 could take place within an international diplomatic framework was precisely because there were no sovereign nations in Africa that could be recognized as being on equal national footing with the European powers to counter their land grabs. the imperialism of the 1600s through 1919 were almost universally characterized by state actors invading and exploiting non-state territories. to know this you'd have to have learned something about history.

after the dissolution of the Ottoman, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and German empires at the end of WWI, many former colonized territories became sovereign states, most often under the guidance of the League of Damnations, and often under the tutelage of the former imperial powers. this obviously altered the nature of imperialism, but to know that you'd have to have learned something about history.

but for Lenin and other right-wing marxists, the issue of "nationalities" and non-sovereign "nations" began to have tactical importance once they understood that a general worker-led uprising in Europe was off the table. so a refurbished anti-imperialism was created, one that focused on "oppressed nations" being dominated by stronger nations (Comintern Condition #8). this is why i and others continually make a distinction between anti-imperialism and Anti-Imperialism (the latter being the leninist version, complete with all the idiotic right-wing marxist ideological crap analysis and absurd programmatic strategies). the leninist version, Anti-Imperialism, mandates that all anti-imperialists take sides in intra-state conflicts or those between sovereign states and states-in-the-making. by the mid-1970s in Europe, almost all radical anti-state/internationalist tendencies had broken with Anti-Imperialism, and "anti-imp" became a term of derision. sadly, the logic of statism and the "nationalism of the oppressed" and "national self-determination" -- which since 1919 always and everywhere means the creation or the consolidation or expansion of the nation-state -- continues to fire the imaginations of too many so-called anarchists in North America, and Wayne is clearly no exception to this despicable false radicalism.

Sh, imperialism is when the US’s allies are attacked, and not when the US and its weapons industry are stretching their lethal tentacles across the world. Because of Malatesta and stuff.

oh, Pain, i love you. and not because i'm a masochist, but because i'm an anarchist (which is often the same thing, even if unintentionally).

Pain Twice (hee-hee) asserts, with get confidence, that I am favorable to the US and its allies, claiming that imperialism only apples to those who attack them and that I do not criticize "the US and its weapons industry...across the world."

Over and over I have denounced US imperialism, compared Russian imperialism to that of the US and its allies, contrasted the Ukrainian resistance that of the Palestinians, the Afghans, the Uyghurs, and (repeatedly) the Vietnamese during the US-Vietnam war. I have written this on this site, in various Comments, and many times elsewhere.

Either dear old PT has not bothered to read any of my many statements or has but is deliberately lying. They should be ashamed.

How exactly does Russian imperialism compare to US imperialism when the US spends 20 times more on its military, has military bases all over the world, and generally occupies a highly unique place at the apex of the global system?

Why would criticizing past US imperialism justify your support for it in the present?

Who created and geopolitically benefits from the conditions that Palestinian and afghans struggle with?

Why doesn’t it matter that it’s the same country funding Ukraine?

you claim, with indignation, " nowhere have i or any other commentator here asserted that imperialism is over. " I suggest you re-read your post 15:29, which I quoted.

reading comprehension fail #63. in my statement about the age of empires (roughly 1884-1919) i mention the disintegration of "the first three", those being the Ottoman, Russian, and Austro-Hungarian. the other two, the British and French, survived the end of WWI because they were victors in that imperialist war, and emerged with their empires expanded, as is well known -- to me and every other person with even a passing understanding of history like you.
my indignation is provoked by your constant misreadings of my statements, whether through ignorance or stupidity. clearly i am easily offended by having to repeat myself because you refuse to learn how to read.

You argue that I am "alleging that there are anarchists who propose that Ukrainians not resist the Russian invasion. nobody has done this. nobody. you're a fucking asshole for constantly repeating this lie."

You have raised this argument before. I can only repeat: Yes, you are abstractly *for* Ukrainians resisting the Russian invasion--on the condition that they do not cooperate in any way with the Ukrainian state's armed forces and do not get any arms from the US. Since an anarchist force cannot be built at this time which meets these conditions, you are not for Ukrainians resisting the invasion .

your bizarre imputational Hegelian dialectics are offensive, untenable, and dishonest. since there are only anarchist individuals and outfits engaged in US/NATO-supplied formations, it makes no sense to declare that "an anarchist [armed] force" could ever be built. there's no specifically anarchist resistance project anywhere in Ukraine, and won't be any time soon. even if they could siphon off munitions from their military and paramilitary colleagues to use at a later time. your presumptions (like your accusations) are fantasies. your dialectical materialism (and i use to term deliberately, as an insult) begins from the conclusion that anarchists and leftists and socialists and whatever other term you want to use must support the Ukrainian military and paramilitary forces -- just like Biden says -- against the Russian invaders. this ignores the actual geopolitical tensions and proxy conflicts that have been going on overtly since AT LEAST 2014 (and much longer if we include the machinations of NATO all over eastern europe since even before the demise of the Soviet Union -- all issues which you continually and deliberately ignore, even when your interlocutors bring them up. it must be harder to score rhetorical points when you have to take actual history into consideration -- it's far simpler to pretend to be deaf.

Some of my critics on this site accuse me of being too "binary" in my thinking. Now you accuse me of being too "dialectical"! Why don't you-all have a debate? I have no desire to get into an argument about philosophy and politics--which I have written about. Especially since I do not know what any of *you* actually mean by these terms. (Philosophically I am a radical Deweyan instrumentalist, similar to anarchist Paul Goodman.)

As to the historical background, which you and others chastise me for not discussing--I have repeatedly placed the Ukrainian war in the context of world imperialism and world-wide national self-determination struggles. That is not our real disagreement. The real issue is that you-all want to reduce the war to a conflict between the US and its allies versus Russia--an inter-imperialist war. I insist that we face the reality of Russian imperialism vs. the Ukrainian people. It is important to look at the inter-imperialist background, but we must also face the immediate reality, the foreground of the Russian-Ukrainian war. This is the reality which Ukrainians and Russian soldiers are stuck in. How should anarchists, as anarchists, relate to it.

You accuse me of saying that anarchists "must support the Ukrainian military and paramilitary forces -- just like Biden says -- against the Russian invaders. " Well no, I say anarchists must support the Ukrainian *people* against the Russian invaders. If this involves working with Ukrainian military forces and taking arms from the US, that is a secondary and tactical decision, so long as it is the only practical option. It is not what we *must do*. (I know this distinction is difficult for you to grasp, since you are so un-dialectical.)

Yes, I have been "scor[ing] rhetorical points". Mainly this is because I have been correct.

"Yes, I have been "scor[ing] rhetorical points". Mainly this is because I have been correct."

Wayne, you are so fucking delusional, it would be funny if it weren't so sad. you're only ever correct by accident, not because of your allegedly superior analytical skills. your historical perspective is ossified; you have refused to entertain anything substantially different between the imperial statecraft of 1909 and 1989 (let alone 2019). you seem believe that Ukraine is a victimized nation-state that is coterminous with "the Ukrainian people" despite borders having changed dramatically between 1921 and 2014, and despite the presence throughout of Poles, Germans, Russians, and Jews who at one time or another were denied citizenship depending on who ruled the area (and for how long, and which more powerful allies the Ukrainians courted). and despite the long-time anarchist unequivocal position making strong separations between a people and a government.

being a pro-Ukrainian nationalist, you've also studiously ignored the actual history of Ukrainian nationalism, where cities and streets have been (re)named, statues erected, and celebratory histories told about Khmelnytsky (the 17th century ethnonationalist who targeted Poles and Jews for massacre), Petliura (the right-wing socialist pogromist), and Bandera (the pro-nazi who targeted Poles and Jews for "special treatment"). the presence of actual fascists like the scum who make up the Azov Battalion goes unmentioned -- but you probably think that's as incidental and unimportant as the arming of the Ukrainian military by the US and NATO.

again, national self-determination has not been on any anarchist agenda (except for the dopes of Love and Rage and NEFAC -- as you well know, since you were embedded in both bankrupt anti-imp outfits) since the late 1950s -- since everywhere and always in the past 70 years national self-determination has been explicitly about the nationalism and nation rather than any meaningful self-determination except as it relates to foreigners -- another category that's only relevant to governments. your understanding of that part of history also solidified without any possibility of change in 1922.

you continue to harp on the same tired points that have been dissected by me and others. you are unable to wrap your head around the fact that imperialism looks and acts differently today than it did a hundred years ago (similar to the ways that capitalism has changed and adapted to different challenges). you can't imagine that any anarchist could disagree with you, despite the fact that all of your argumentation is based on leninist bullshit about "oppressed nations."

now it seems that you are willing to fight the Russians down to the last eastern European anarchist. nice.

Is it lost on you that you’re commenting on an article about anarchists fighting alongside literal Nazis and other anarchists raising money for them to continue doing so? Why do you think this is worth fighting for? Why as an anarchist would you think Ukrainians, even Ukrainian anarchists, should fight the Russian state but not against the Ukrainian state or Ukrainian fascists? That fighting against Russia is worth allying with Nazis? That’s exactly what the US government and both parties say. Why do you agree with that?

"oppose the Ukrainians getting arms and aid from the Western imperialists."

Yes, but more precisely, I oppose **war profiteering**. Something the "state socialists" don't seem to care much about.

My only opposition to the idea of Russia being undermined by Western powers (what is happening rn), is that Russia's only defense against them is and has always been the nukes. Ergo, if NATO keeps pushing the Kremlin in a corner, something might happen that will not be in your best interests, unless they offered you a room in their deep underground bases.

Like Anon 20:27, I too "oppose 'war profiteering'". The arms industry, like all other industries, should be taken out of the hands of the capitalists and managed, non-profitably, by the workers and the local communities.

But right now the Ukrainians need arms. Where will they get them from--since anarchist communities doe not exist just yet?
This is a problem for the existing Ukrainian state, and it would be a problem for an anarchist communist federation of Ukraine also. They have to get guns. They would seize as many as possible from the Russian invaders, and make as many as possible from their own industry (while being bombed by the Russians), but still armaments would have to be made available, or they would lose--war profiteering in the US or no war profiteering.

"In an anarchist society, after the Revolution, the people in need will have free ARs, tanks and KILLER DRONES to defend themselves against invaders... but "until all are free", we gotta support the supermassive Western cap military-industrial complex."

Yes, no thanks, Wayne. We all know it's giga-profiteers behind Raytheon, BAE systems, Turkey and many others that have been making billions out of the Ukrainian counter-offensive.

Just to be clear, the first paragraph, which is between quotation marks, is not a quote from me, on this list or elsewhere. The implication that it is (the quote marks) is a lie.

I am all for campaigns against military spending. Billions could be cut from the Pentagon's budget and still have plenty to aid Ukraine.

In an anarchist society, I do not expect "people in need," as individuals to "have free ARs, tanks, and killer drones." Individuals may be armed, under whatever community regulations local people make. But there would be community and workplace organized popular militias (an armed people), organized by the community for collective self-defense SO LONG AS THIS IS (felt to be) NEEDED. This would take the place of police and armed forces.

As for Raytheon and other blood suckers, you are right, but this is irrelevant to Ukraine's need for arms.

"I am all for campaigns against military spending. Billions could be cut from the Pentagon's budget and still have plenty to aid Ukraine."

So Wayne, I thing you might just be having some logic issues.

That the Pentagon still spends hundreds of millions, or billions to "aid Ukraine", this means to be war-profiteering. That means expenditures for ordering massive loads of weaponry from arms contractors and shipping it to Ukraine, i.e. what the US and other NATO countries have been doing since last winter.

Shareholders and CEOs of the military-industrial complex aren't doing this out of charity, just to make that clear with u, brah. This must be the most lucrative business opportunity since the War on Terror back in 2001.

Yes, I agree, and said, that this is war-profiteering. But this is really irrelevant to our opinion of the war. The "shareholders and CEOs of the military-industrial complex aren't doing this out of charity...." Yes, they are capitalists who do things to make a profit. And the politicians and military leaders of the capitalist national state, they aren't supporting Ukraine out of charity either. They are motivated by imperialist nationalist great-power motives. What else is new?

But anarchists support Ukrainian national self-determination for *our* reasons, because we support the freedom of the Ukrainian people to decide their own future by themselves, without being massacred and bombed. And the Ukrainian people also have their own motives, namely not to be massacred and bombed and taken over by the Russian state. And they are willing to get arms from the Western war-profiteers not because they want to support the profits of the arms-profiteers, but because they want to win the war.

It is a mistake to reduce the motives of the war only to the US war-profiteers and to ignore the motives of the Ukrainian workers and oppressed people.

No one’s reducing the motives- you are minimizing the concrete consequences in favor of idealistic pontification about those motives. Not surprising since concrete information about Ukraine is really not your thing. I’ve noticed that despite your obsession with this topic and replying to nearly every comment, you disappear every time I start talking about Ukrainian history and politics. Weird! Almost like you don’t even really give a gosh darn about Ukraine. I feel like I’ve seen you mention Malatesta 50 times though.

It is a mistake to reduce the motives of the war only to the US war-profiteers and to ignore the motives of the Ukrainian workers and oppressed people."

Indeed, this is a mistake that these exact same US war-profiteers don't want us to make -especially in online discourse spaces- as this would undermine their narrative (enforced here constantly by YOU), that it's entirely about the "Ukrainians" liberation war against a completely foreign imperialist invader, and the the aspect of war-profiteering from endless, supermassive arms sales in support of this war is just some tiny irrelevant details, meh.

Workers of the world unite for Ukrainian nationalism!

No not really Wayne not when the US has been pouring weapons into the country for almost a decade of civil war, something I’ve never even seen you address once here

Be more verbose in your replies or we will delete your comments. You've been warned.

Okay, I’m saying it’s extremely relevant that the profit seeking behavior and close state ties of the arms industry is part of how this war came to take place. WP never seems to want to talk about anything that happened in Ukraine before February 24. The tens of billions of dollars sunk into this war by the richest and most militaristic state on earth just happen to be on the side of anarchy, apparently.

Better?

to the (verified) (not verified). people get creative up in here.

As for my putting the present war in historical context, see above post, IMPUTATIONAL HEGELIAN DIALECTICS?

As for " how this war came to take place," I rather think it took place because the Russian state leaders (or just Putin) decided to invade Ukraine. While US arms manufacturers no doubt wanted to sell more weapons, they never gave Ukraine enough to seriously threaten Russia. The Ukrainians were a good market for the arms makers, because they felt threatened by Russia (ha-ha, how foolish of them!).

But Putin, representing the Russian state and ruling class, wanted to expand their power. They thought Ukraine would be easy pickings.
And that is how the war came to be. Of course, a more deep analysis would put the whole thing in the context of world imperialism and great state power rivalry and the struggle for freedom everywhere, but that is not the daily experience of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians and Russian soldiers.

“I rather think it took place because the Russian state leaders (or just Putin) decided to invade Ukraine.”

This is exhibit A of you having your head 100% up your ass because the war was 8 years old when that happened and 14,000 people had already died in the Donbass. I’m begging you to learn ONE (1) actual fact about Ukraine before posting again about this.

The civil war in the Donbas (provoked and supported by Russia, which kept it going year after year) was internal to Ukraine, however much the Russians kept underwriting their side. It was not the same thing as an out-and-out invasion by a massive army, seeking to seize the capital and to wipe out Ukraine as an independent country (as Putin repeatedly said).

Oh yeah and the Ukrainians sided with the Nazis during WW2 against the Russians, so like umm, the collective cultural memory is maintained and reaffirmed to this day. Nothing more to add, that just makes you a mercenary I suppose if you're not Ukrainian or Russian.

Funny how you lovers of going to "the background" of the Ukrainian War are so selective in where to start looking at backgrounds. For example, *before* World War II Ukraine had been devastated by human-caused famine, Stalin's war on the peasants. This included forced collectivization, arresting and killing thousands of "kulacks" (barely surviving "rich peasants"), gathering Ukrainian grain to ship abroad for foreign money while peasants starved, and so on, called the "Holodomar." Millions died.

So when the Germans invaded, many Ukrainians greeted them as saviors, hoping for liberation. Instead the Germans treated them as subhumans, destined for extermination. Many Ukrainians had formed independent armed forces to fight the Russians, hoping for aid from the Germans. After the Nazis showed their true colors, these military groupings tried to fight independently of both sides, although they were overwhelmed and ground down between the totalitarian forces.

Not to deny the history of Ukrainian Jew-hatred, which was widespread in Eastern Europe, but your one-sided history denies the very many Ukrainians who fought against the Germans in WWII in the Soviet Army and as partisans.

Anyway, this argument is somewhat irrelevant. You "anti-war" anarchists are opposed in principle to national self-determination in any case, whether or not the Ukrainians are raving Nazis or fervent democrats.

Wayne "War Machine" Price justifying fascism, antisemitism, and militarism? Whaaaaaat?

Wayne "War Machine" Price using '"anti-war" anarchists' as an insult?? Whaaaat???

Fab Freddy: Of course, when I write "anti-war" within quotation marks, I mean *so-called "anti-war,"* those who falsely call themselves "anti-war." I do not doubt that you are sincerely anarchists but whatever you *think* you are doing, you-all are de facto supporters of Russia's war. This is, since you oppose the Ukrainian resistance to the invasion, you oppose Ukrainians getting arms from the only possible present source (US imperialism), you oppose anarchists working with the state on practical military matters (so long as they cannot yet overthrow it), and you repeatedly slander the Ukrainian people.

The rest of your charges (that I am pro-fascist, antisemitic, for a War Machine, etc.) are beneath contempt, as are you.

Doesn't this logic you're using here make you a "de facto supporter" of US Imperialism and NATO, Wayne? Please be honest.

Wayne will never answer this question because it exposes him as a NATO & USA bootlicker. His silence on so many questions speaks volumes and it is why he represents a dead current.

Absolutely correct. Previously he expressed -- in a rare moment of candor-- that he was not operating with any principles. Like most (if not all) organizationalist anarcho-leftists with a tendency toward authoritarianism (if you'll excuse the redundancy), he's a crass opportunist, trying desperately to find new cadre to fold into their stupid tiny sectarian gangs. He's an intellectual bully, using the logical fallacies of appeal to authority (selectively and ahistorically referencing Bakunin, et al) and straw man arguments. And that's aside from his totally bad faith strict binaries (critical of the US/NATO arming of the Ukrainian state's military? You are automatically a supporter of Putin!).

“very many Ukrainians”

Very trumpian, to just toss in an intensifying modifier like that. Unfortunately (again, some sht you’d know if you knew anything about any of this) there were very few anti fascist partisans in occupied Ukraine. I really hope you’re not trying to rehabilitate the much larger, avowedly fascist OUN/UPA for the fact that they did kill a few Germans, when they weren’t slaughtering minorities or fighting the soviets that is.

Wayne doubling down on his authoritarianism, promoting democracy (again) as if it were the same thing as anarchism -- hint, it isn't and never has been. yes, many anarchists throughout the last 100 years have been opposed to national self-determination for the exact reasons i brought up many times and which you have studiously ignored each time. when national self-determination means the nation gets to create its own state with its own military, courts, and police all anarchists will (or at least should) be opposed to that project. and since every campaign for national self-determination since the end of WWI has been explicitly concerned with the capture and/or creation of state power, anarchists have been opposed to them. not the self-determination part necessarily, which is how you find a minority of anarchists involved in varying degrees with particular anti-colonial struggles, but definitely against the national part. to see self-described anarchists waving some flag attached to a guerrilla group or a state-in-formation or an existing "smaller, weaker state" is a disgusting capitulation to cross-class collaboration and always ends up meaning support for capitalism. to ignore this is to ignore the lived history of radicalism in the 20th century.

using scare quotes or ironic quotation marks as a way to indicate you believe it is a falsity is also authoritarian. there are at least a half-dozen other ways to indicate irony or disagreement without using this marxist tic (Marx overused this sad and despicable rhetorical trick in his scattershot attacks against his enemies on the left, especially against anarchists). your attempt to explain your deployment of this shitty device is yet another example of your inability to think outside of binaries; to you, anyone who questions the Ukrainian jubilation at being armed by the US/NATO is de facto a supporter of Putin. sorry, Wayne, but that's not how actual dialectics work.

More like tripling down, amirite? He just keeps using the same old Leninist arguments that were already past their expiration date back in the 1930's. He also seems to ignore that the animosity of Russians to an independent Ukraine goes back to the civil war of 1918-1921, and that the Holodomor was preceded by Trotsky's policy of Red Army requisitions that caused widespread famine and starvation (but not on the same scale as the 1930's). But then he'd have to acknowledge that the Leninism of his earlier years was wrong all along... and we all know that it's impossible for Wayne to admit to being mistaken about anything. Even the incorrect use of quotation marks -- which are called quotation marks because they are used to indicate when someone is actually being quoted, instead of having words put in their mouths.

"Did the Ukrainians Side with the Nazis in WWII?"

Yes the did.

The active collaboration of the OUM with Nazi occupiers in the Holocaust is well-documented. Just as their shared intent on killing anyone Left-leaning (i.e. the Soviet communist "Empire").

Wayne is starting to show his real colors... and they ain't very nice.

I don’t give a fuck if Putin wipes out the Ukrainian state and neither should any anarchist. Countries are fake as fuck, that should be like anarchism 101, and Ukraine is a great example of why: There has never been any Ukrainian nationalism without fascism, it was instigated in response to the 1917 revolution, neither Ukraine nor Belarus were ever independent countries or thought of as such. Then some fascists built a militaristic organization to break off one of the most strategically significant regions of the ussr, and a century later neoliberals, fascists and anarchists alike are regurgitating their propaganda.

Why are you so obsessed with this story you have about the “noble Ukrainian People”? How do you think Ukraine got that way? The myth of a monolithic identity is the rhetorical surface of a history of mass violence and ethnics cleansing of Jews, poles, Hungarians, Roma, Russians…you seem captivated by romanticized white nationalism dressed up in a simplistic “underdog” narrative. This is even aside from all the stuff about how the NATO countries arming and funding Ukraine’s far-right government and military are using the whole situation for their own ends. You seem really really taken in by nationalism, even if you insist on always saying “the People” or “national Liberation”. Wtf is your actual deal with this stuff? Why doesn’t aligning with the worst imaginable political forces trouble you at all? On the contrary you seem really psyched to defend them…

Wow! Judging from the slew of responses, I must have struck a nerve. Too bad there wasn't more thought given to the responses and less name-calling and insults. In particular, no one answered my point that if you don't support the freedom of oppressed peoples to decide their own future (national self-determination), then it really doesn't matter how you analyze the Ukrainians, does it? Nice or Nazi, they don't get to defend themselves from imperialist conquest!

" then he'd have to acknowledge that the Leninism of his earlier years was wrong all along... and we all know that it's impossible for Wayne to admit to being mistaken about anything" Dear me. I have written three books and many articles but somehow forgot to admit that "the Leninism of [my] earlier years was wrong." How foolish of me. And I thought that I had written this over and over again in many places.

"Countries are fake as fuck". So I guess there is no France, no Yemen, no United States, no Germany, no China, etc. They are all fake as fuck. Of course, countries are created through historical and social developments, but this does not make countries "fake as fuck."

The main issue is the war. While there has been a history of political and economic tensions in Eastern Europe, this war was immediately caused by Putin's decision to invade Ukraine with a large army. He wanted to destroy Ukraine, not just the state but the culture, the language, and the heritage of the people (or so he said). He intended to occupy the country, and either just wipe it out or set up parts as puppet regimes. That is the war. The Ukrainians resisted--the people, not just the state. The war will end when the Russians leave or are defeated.

The only real antiwar position here is to support the Ukrainians in their efforts to defeat and drive out the Russians. Anything else is prowar. This makes me pro-Ukrainian. Does it make me pro-NATO, pro-US imperialism? No. I am not for the expansion of NATO (and am for its disbandment). I am not for US imperialism and oppose its actions in the Arab East, Africa, Latin America, and Asia. But I am for the Ukrainians getting arms from wherever they can. The Western imperialists have their motives and the Ukrainians have theirs. Right now these go together enough for the Ukrainians to benefit. If the Russians want this to stop, they have only to withdraw from their invasion.

Enough! I am tired of beating my head against a brick wall of ignorance, ill-logic, and malice. Enough for now.

"He wanted to destroy Ukraine, not just the state but the culture, the language, and the heritage of the people (or so he said)."

Nope. Putin wanted to "de-Nazify" the country. That's literally what he said, and nothing about eradicating Ukrainian language, culture and people.

"Enough! I am tired of beating my head against a brick wall of ignorance, ill-logic, and malice. "

Yes, take a very very long break. Go find Makho to your beloved Ukraaaaaaiiiine and never come back, plz.

Is it more or am I seeing stupid Scott Ritter talking points regarding 'denazification' of Ukraine. C'mon guys, this tends to come from the other side of retards via Ritter and worse full on authoritarian leftoids.

I'm not a Ukraine backer, but I really wouldn't mind seeing Putin lose either. I'm also not that particularly obsessed with NATO/USA either. They're the dominant hegemons of leviathan. I'd prefer to just break down the game and not obsess about who the current dominants are. I'll say this much, the current hegemons are the ones I'm used to, and you may want to be careful what you wish for in terms of a change of dominants.

Maybe it' the pagan in me but war and empire are just epiphenomenal problems that come from work and education, I'd rather spend energy eroding the latter then waste it on the branching problems of warfare which is just human conflict to scale, and there will always be human conflict.

ToooOoootally well said, egregorian brah! The pagan in me said the same thing after buying me a nice cuppa. We radical centrist ego egregores can observe the human conflict and say, "no problem! I shall write commentary on these issues post haste!"

Every egregore knows this

Exactly, a domestic insurgency starting in the formative years, where just the imagination and creative vitality of children, if left to develop without the impositionof rules and narrow doctrine, will allow for the evolution of diverse lifestyles independent of hegemonies.

well, it's now officially time for me to bow out of this fraught dialog with Wayne. good-natured teasing is one thing, bad faith delusions are quite another. long ago i made a decision (when having a similar exchange with a non-anarchist -- and in many instances an anti-anarchist -- academic) not to antagonize people who are obviously demented or deranged or otherwise cracked. Wayne is clearly cracked. how else to explain this line of so-called reasoning?:

"The only real antiwar position here is to support the Ukrainians in their efforts to defeat and drive out the Russians. Anything else is prowar. This makes me pro-Ukrainian."
so the *only* anti-war position is to support the efforts of a military force being armed to the teeth by the US/NATO?! how does that make even the slightest bit of sense? hint: it doesn't. it's positively Orwellian.

"I am for the Ukrainians getting arms from wherever they can. The Western imperialists have their motives and the Ukrainians have theirs. Right now these go together enough for the Ukrainians to benefit. If the Russians want this to stop, they have only to withdraw from their invasion."
this is not the logic of someone who is ostensibly against war, but of someone who is either indifferent to war or who supports war as a means of resolving geopolitical conflict. clearly this is a position far removed from anything recognizable as anarchist, or even left wing. it is unselfconsciously based on government policies on citizenship and military mobilization.

by no means does my withdrawal from this debate indicate my acceptance of Wayne's extremely non-anarchist, pro-war, and pro-Ukrainian nationalist delusions. but just as it's gratuitously mean to poke a wounded and defenseless animal, so too is it gratuitously mean to antagonize a philosophically and intellectually moribund (and therefore defenseless) person.

Do not stop showing Wayne for who he is. I don't have your patience and thecollective hates my brief (but on-point) rebukes of Wayne's non-anarchist, pro-war nonsense.

Never let the NATO-loving pro-war anarcho-Trots have the forum!

A study in the negative and often contradictory policies and actions from a person who has learned anarchism by rote instead of from the empathic heart. *sigh*

Add new comment