Anarchists Support Self-Determination for Ukraine

From Anarkismo

Full original title: Anarchists Support Self-Determination for Ukraine; What Did Bakunin Say About National Self-Determination?

by Wayne Price

The Debate Goes On

Alex Alder wrote an article, “British Anarchism Succumbs to War Fever.” (Alder 2023) He was unhappy that many British, Eastern European, and other anarchists were supporting the Ukrainian people against the imperialist Russian invasion. I argued against his view in, “Are Anarchists Giving in to War Fever? In Defense of Anarchists Who Support the Ukrainian People.” (Price 2023)

My article was republished on the website of the Czech Anarchist Federation. Then Tridni Valka (Class War), another Czech anarchist grouping, wrote an angry response, denouncing my (and the Anarchist Federation’s) support for the Ukrainian people’s resistance. (Tridni Valka 2023) “The delay in our brief response can only be explained by the fact that it took us a long time to recover from [Wayne Price’s] text…” This is my response, in which I will try to cover key aspects of their argument.

Bakunin’s Views on National Self-Determination

Central to T.V.’s argument is a denial that anarchists might support any oppressed people or nation. “That ‘anarchists’ operate with the concept of nation is new to us! … Anarchists are opposed to nationhood and its material consequences such as the nation-state [and] national self-determination….Revolutionary anarchists have always held anti-national positions….”

This statement is factually untrue. It confuses the nation (community, people, country) and the nation-state (national government, with its ideology of nationalism) which anarchists have indeed always opposed. I have previously written an article on the anarchist Errico Malatesta, comrade of Bakunin and Kropotkin. (Price 2022) I demonstrated that he had supported the national rebellions and self-determination of oppressed peoples, even as he opposed wars between imperialist states (particularly World War I). But what was the opinion of Michael Bakunin, among the first revolutionary anarchists?

In his selection of Bakunin’s writings, Sam Dolgoff writes, "Bakunin argues that the nation-state is not a natural community. He defines the contrast between Nationality, ones natural love for the place and the people...and Patriotism, the absolute power of the state over its native subjects and conquered national minorities." (1980; p. 401) Then he quotes Bakunin:

“Nationality, like individuality, is a natural fact. It denotes the inalienable right of individuals, groups, associations, and regions to their own way of life. And this way of life is the product of a long historical development [a confluence of human beings with a common history, language, and a common cultural background]. And this is why *I will always champion the cause of oppressed nationalities struggling to liberate themselves* from the domination of the state.” (Dolgoff, 1980, p. 401. My emphasis.)

By “the state” in this passage, he refers to the foreign state which dominates the oppressed nationality. By “nationality...is a natural fact,” he means, not that nationality is a biological fact, but that it is created mostly by unplanned, unpurposive, social history.

Bakunin also wrote, “Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principle of freedom.” (quoted in Bonanno 1990, pp. 20–21)

Also, "Each individual, each association, commune, or province, each region and nation, 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....The right to unite freely and [to] separate with the same freedom is the most important of all political rights, without which confederation will always be disguised centralization.” (quoted in Guerin, Anarchism, 1970, p. 67)

In his book on anarchism, Daniel Guerin interpreted this statement: “True internationalism rests on self-determination, which implies the right of secession..” (p. 67) Guerin goes so far as to suggest that “Lenin… adopted this concept from Bakunin.” This is unlikely, since Lenin had little regard for anarchist theory. The concept was already widely known by that time.

As T.V. recognizes, the right of national self-determination was a bourgeois-democratic demand, created by capitalism, along with such demands as free speech, freedom of association, land to the peasants, the right to bear arms, election of officials, and so on. However, capitalism never fully granted these demands, especially now in its epoch of decline. They can only be consistently won through a revolution of the workers and oppressed. Therefore the fight for bourgeois-democratic demands has revolutionary implications in our time.

“For Bakunin, then, the achievement of national liberation had to be linked to the broader struggle for an international revolution. If nationality was separate from the state…it did not need the state for emancipation….” (van den Walt & Schmidt 2009; p. 64)

Nor was Lenin’s concept of national self-determination exactly the same as that of anarchists. Lenin argued that self-determination would result in voluntary merger into a world state which was homogeneous, integrated, and centralized. Anarchists aim for a decentralized, regionalized, and pluralistic world, with peoples connecting through networks and federations.

It should be clear that Bakunin (also Malatesta, and Dolgoff and Guerin) would not have agreed with T.V. that all “Anarchists are opposed to nationhood and…have always held anti-national positions…,” including opposition to national self-determination. Opposition to nationhood and anti-nationality is the opinion of T.V., but it is not the “anarchist” tradition.

This is summarized in Zoe Barker’s recent overview of anarchism: “For anarchists, this commitment to universal human solidarity entailed an opposition to imperialism and colonialism and the support of anti-colonial national liberation movements, such as those in Cuba, India, and Ireland. According to Maximoff, ‘the anarchists demand the liberation of all colonies and support every struggle for national independence….’ “ (2023; pp. 109-110)

She follows with the important addition, “This support included the belief that the main goal of national liberation movements—emancipation—could only be achieved through the methods of anarchism, rather than the establishment of a new state.” (same)

That is, the program of “nationalism” could lead to a formally independent state (as it did in Cuba, India, and Ireland), with its own flag, its own currency and postage stamps, its own president, army, police, and capitalists. The nation’s workers are still being exploited. True emancipation from the imperialist-dominated world market and great-power politics, will require an international working class revolution. Anarchists participate in national liberation struggles in order to spread this awareness and work toward this goal. As Lucien van der Walt writes, many anarchists seek

“…to participate in national liberation struggles in order to shape them, win the battle of ideas, [and] displace nationalism with a politics of national liberation through class struggle….Nationalism is only one current in national liberation or anti-imperialist struggles…National liberation struggles could develop into a variety of outcomes.” (van den Walt & Schmidt 2009; pp. 310-11)

I present all these quotations and citations, not because I think that Bakunin and other anarchists were always correct—which I do not. I am trying to refute the smugly ignorant claim that all “Anarchists are opposed to nationhood and…national self-determination.”

During the War

In summary, (1) revolutionary anarchists support the wars of oppressed nations against imperialists. These are not the same as wars where both sides are imperialist. (2) revolutionary anarchists are always in opposition to states, even including the states of oppressed nations, advocating popular revolutions against them.

This raises the question of what anarchists should be doing when a national war is raging (say Ukraine versus Russian imperialist
aggression) but they are too weak as yet to be part of a revolution against the state.

In my paper (the one which T.V. took so long to “recover from”), I used the example of the Spanish Civil War/Revolution (1936-39). The issue was not national self-determination but a fascist-military attempt to overthrow the established bourgeois-democratic government. The government was run by a “Popular Front” coalition of Socialists, Stalinists, liberal politicians, and the main anarcho-syndicalist organizations (the CNT union and the FAI anarchist federation). While fighting the fascist armies, the Popular Front proceded to re-build the weakened democratic capitalist state.

This policy was opposed by a revolutionary wing of the anarchists and syndicalists. (Evans 2020) One part of this wing was the Friends of Durruti Group. They called on the anarchist organizations to quit the government, to promote federations of self-managed industries and farms, to expropriate the capitalists and big landholders, and to federate workers and farmers councils and unions into a central body to run the war. Meanwhile by propaganda and action, they sought to persuade the majority of the working class to overturn the Popular Front regime and to make a revolution which could effectively defeat the fascist forces.

But they did not call on the workers to quit the armed forces which were fighting the fascist armies. After all, they criticized the Popular Front government for many things, but not for fighting the fascist military! (Similarly, anarchists should condemn the Ukrainian state for many things, but not for resisting the Russian invasion.)

Nor would the workers have understood a call for abandoning the army. They would have seen it as proposing surrender. (Similarly today, if anarchists told the Ukrainian workers to stop fighting because the Ukrainian army was organized by a bourgeois national state, the workers would rightly see this as a call to surrender to the Russians.)

The Friends of Durruti wrote, “There must be no collaboration with capitalism whether outside the bourgeois state or from within the government itself. As producers our place is in the unions….[But] class struggle is no obstacle to fight on in the battlefields and working in the war factories.

“….Revolutionary workers must not shoulder official posts nor establish themselves in the ministries. For as long as the war lasts, collaboration is permissible—on the battlefield, in the trenches, on the parapets, and in productive labor in the rearguard.” (Friends of Durruti Group 1978; pp. 35 & 38)

In fact, none of the Ukrainian anarchists, most of whom support the war effort, have joined the government, joined Zelensky’s party, called for votes for his party, or participated in the government in any other way.

T.V. disputes my understanding of the Friends of Durruti (FoD). “Wayne Price…didn’t understand their critique of the united front in the least.” (Actually the FoD did not critique the “united front”—a coalition of workers’ organizations. They advocated an alliance of revolutionary organizations. What they opposed was the “Popular Front”, the coalition of workers’ parties with capitalist parties as well as Stalinists.) T.V. points out that the FoD did not only oppose governmental collaboration of anarchists with political parties. They also opposed anarchists working outside of government to further capitalist aims—the effort to rebuild the bourgeois democratic Spanish state. I did not say otherwise.

But T.V. goes on to criticize the FoD themselves. “The Friends of Durruti did not demand the withdrawal of the anarchists from the front, but this proved to be a decisive error….” But the FoD did not advocate that anarchist fighters passively carry out the program of the collaborationists. They tried to create a revolutionary strategy of action to lead to revolution. Their “decisive error” was in not organizing soon enough to build a revolutionary alternative to the reformist leadership of the anarchists and socialists.

Class Reductionism

The basic method of T.V. is that of class reductionism, a crude (and illegitimate) version of Marxism. I take the essence of anarchism to be opposition to all forms of domination. Exploitation of the modern working class by the bourgeoisie, integrated with the state, is central to all oppression. It supports all non-class forms of oppression, and is, in turn, supported by them. This includes the oppression of women, African-Americans and other People of Color, LGBTQ people, people with “disabilities,” youth, as well as (our topic) national oppression. But while class exploitation overlaps with all other oppressions, they are not reducible to class exploitation. They also have their own dynamics.

But to T.V., the only oppression worth considering is the proletariat’s exploitation by capitalism. All others are distractions. T.V. and I agree that the working class needs to overcome its divisions into women and men, African Americans and Euro-Americans, straights and LGBTQ people, Czechs and Slovaks, Ukrainians and Russians, etc. These divisions cannot be overcome by ignoring them but only by defending the needs and freedoms of everyone, especially the most oppressed, the most exploited, including peoples facing the terror of imperialist aggression.

T.V. accuses the Czech Anarchist Federation and myself as being partially “in the camp of the warmongers who support the mutual massacre of proletarians in Ukraine.” This shows how far they have deviated from reality, in the service of their schematic abstractions. One side has chosen to make war. That is the imperialist state of Russia. It has invaded and occupied Ukraine, blown up its villages and cities, massacred its inhabitants, raped its women, tortured soldiers and civilians, kidnapped children, risked nuclear accidents at reactors, and sought to wipe out the Ukrainians as a culturally distinct people. The Ukrainian people have had the temerity to resist, which I suppose makes them “mutual warmongers” to T.V.—and to the Russian state. There is a French saying, “The animal is vicious. When attacked it defends itself.”

The anarchist-communists have not (yet?) persuaded the Ukrainian workers to overthrow capitalism and the state. So (unfortunately) the nationwide resistance is organized and led by the bourgeois state—although there is much bottom-up voluntary organizing. Lacking its own arms, the state has gotten military aid from Western imperialists. These do not really care about such things as democracy or national self-determination. They are out to expand their influence and weaken their Russian rival. But the Ukrainians have the right to take arms from whomever will offer them, rather than be crushed. Yet they should not be too trusting of the US and NATO, which would betray them in a breath, if it seemed to be in the imperialists’ interests.

I would not advise Ukrainian anarchists on their immediate tactics. But their overall strategy should have two interconnected goals. One is to drive out the Russians and defend the independence of the Ukrainians. The other is to spread the program of anarchism among the workers, soldiers, and other Ukrainians, with the eventual goal of an anti-state, anti-capitalist, revolution—by the working class and all oppressed, internationally. Even now, there is a need to oppose the government’s neo-liberal austerity and union-busting and to oppose nationalism in general and the far-right in particular.

The left, and not just anarchists, is deeply divided over the Ukraine-Russian war. The fundamental issue is whether to be on the side of the workers and other Ukrainians who are fighting for their very lives and independence, or whether to side with imperial elites offering only domination and destruction.

References

Alder, Alex (2023). “British Anarchism Succumbs to War Fever.”
https://anarchistnews.org/comment/51586#comment-51586

Baker, Zoe (2023). Means and Ends; The Revolutionary Practice of Anarchism in Europe and the United States. Chico CA: AK Press.

Bonanno (1990). Anarchism and the National Liberation Struggle.

Dolgoff, Sam (ed.) (1980) Bakunin On Anarchism. Montreal CAN: Black Rose Books.

Evans, Danny (2020). Revolution and the State; Anarchism in the Spanish Civil War 1936—1939. Chico CA: AK Press.

Friends of Durruti Group (1978/1935). Towards a Fresh Revolution.
Sanday Orkney: Cienfuegos Press.

Guerin, Daniel (1970). Anarchism. NY: Monthly Review Press.

Price, Wayne (2022). “Malatesta on War and National Self-Determination” https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32666 search_text=Wayne+Price

Price, Wayne (2023). “Are Anarchists Giving in to War Fever? In Defense of Anarchists Who Support the Ukrainian People.”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32731

Tridni Valka (May 2023) “What’s New in ‘Anarchism’? National Self-determination and the Coincidence of Interests with Capital?!”
https://www.autistici.org/tridnivalka/whats-new-in-anarchism-national-se...

van der Walt, Lucien, & Schmidt, Michael (2009). Black Flame; The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism. Oakland CA: AK Press.

*written for Anarkismo.net

There are 109 Comments

Still waiting for anarchists to stop fetishizing Ukraine and Palestine and care about The Native people on this American Continent

#FreeTibetSyndrome

Colonialism is colonialism, whether its Britain invading Turtle Island with armed settlers or Putin (please don't blame all Russians!) invading Ukraine with a formal army. It tells me a hell of a lot that there are Russian anarchists fighting for Ukraine's people, but no known reports of Ukrainian anarchists fighting for Putin. I stand fully in support of both the people of Ukraine as they fight back against a brute-force invasion- and of those Russians who are burning conscription centers, derailing arms trains, and in general fighting Putin with everything they've got. Until there's victory, there's BOAK!

Nobody should be allowed to make apologies for Putin. I wasn't at the Code Pink event so I have no idea what Medea said, but I worked with Code Pink against Bush's war in Iraq for a decade. If Code Pink has in truth decided to support a leader who foreign policy is so similar to that of GW Bush I find that a disgusting repudiation of all we said and did at all those events opposing Bush's invasion of Iraq.

As for me, right now I am deployed to another front, Florida. We face a very difficult battle here and the outcome is uncertain. We may lose this entire state and a lot of people within it who cannot leave. The Dobbs decision to allow abortion bans has unleashed a howling, Category 5 hurricane of hate. We have Christian nationalists in power calling for genocide against trans folks. As a cisqueer man I know damned well I am next in line, just as Moldovia is next in line if Ukraine is defeated. Putin is indeed a lot like Hitler-but so are Trump and worst of all DeSantis. Seeing Putin getting his teeth knocked out in Ukraine gives me hope that tyrants can be defeated here too.

DeSantis like Putin will keep pushing farther and farther until he is stopped. I don't have to go to Moscow to confront a violent, murderous, power-mad dictator, we have our own in Tallahassee. Either he is defeated or thousands will die under the iron boot of his crazy religious taboos about sex and gender. This is how dictators behave whether in Moscow, Washington, or Tallahassee.

Putin is killing people, DeSantis is killing MY people. That tells me where my fight is.

In less than a month St Petersburg (FL not Russia) Pride will stand their ground against the onslaught unleashed by Dobbs and directed by thugs like DeathSantis. Lots of Prides are cancelling here, but not St Pete. This could stay a peaceful exercise of our traditions if we are left alone. People are hoping for peace but fearing the worst. DeSantis could send the Fl State Police to raid a drag event or arrest drag queens at Pride. That would be all but guaranteed to end in fighting at this point. Equally possible is an attack by the Proud Boys, who have effectively declared war on Pride events. Anything they start, cops in Florida are all but guaranteed to join and on their side. Once it starts, no idea how far it could escalate. Things are so tense here that out of control escalation both vertical and horizontal are possible after any incident. That sort of shit was how WWI started.

In the end, I stand with the people of Ukraine, and hopefully Ukraine's LGBTQ and anarchist communities will stand with us. We each have our own fights but we can draw inspiration and lessons from each other.

As usual, I am in complete agreement with Luke's comments.

Anon (Still Waiting) thinks that anarchists are "fetishizing" Ukrainians and Palestinians and don't "care about the Native people" of North America. Yet you put up a slogan, "Free Tibet." Which assumes you care not only about Native Americans but also about Tibetans who are oppressed by the Chinese Communist regime on the other side of the world. Why not support Ukrainians, Palestinians, Tibetans, Native Americans, and all the oppressed and exploited of the world against the capitalists and states and all other systems of oppression? (Of course it is a matter of priorities which group you want to spend you energy on at any one time, but in principle you should be in solidarity with all the oppressed.)

It was aweful how the Ukrainian officials at the evacuation made the African students go to the back of the que. Shame on them!

lol. so much goes totally over and around your dense head. tell us, how is your energy being spent on these millions of people around the world exactly, besides typing daily diatribes online?

the old man shouting at the cloud or the anon dunking on the old man?

mirror mirror on the wall... who's the engagement psyopist of all?

Yup! Me too. Still waiting for the North American and European anarchists supporting their empire to begin to comprehend their inherent white supremacy. They just call it “supporting the Ukrainian people now”.

Seriously? you're going to compare supporting an oppressed people to white supremacy? Clearly not supporting Ukraine is way more white supremacist than supporting them is. Russia is a fascist, ultra-capitalist oligarchy with nukes. Whereas Ukraine is a much smaller country with a (very flawed) liberal democracy. As anarchists we obviously hate both systems, but get your fudging priorities straight. It's obviously better to support a country fighting against literal genocide than stay neutral on the issue of "Genocidal Oligarchy vs. Oppressed Liberal democracy"

"Clearly not supporting Ukraine is blah blah blah" ... "It's obviously better to support a country blah blah blah"

GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY BELOVED ANEWS WITH THIS DOGSHIT. This is an anarchist website, fuck-o.

Also:

"Russia is a fascist, ultra-capitalist oligarchy with nukes."

You should look at the countries that make up NATO.

GET OUT!

There's a difference between supporting the people of Ukraine and supporting the state of Ukraine. I don't like the state of Ukraine, but we should still support the Ukrainian people because they are being oppressed by a fascist agitator.
As for NATO being nuclear armed and fascist, that is true, to an extent. But it doesn't matter because this is a war between Ukraine and Russia, not NATO and Russia.
Also, just to be petty, Screaming "GET OUT" and saying "blah blah blah" is the exact reason nobody wants to join this cause, idiot.

"There's a difference between supporting the people of Ukraine and supporting the state of Ukraine. I don't like the state of Ukraine, but we should still support the Ukrainian people because they are being oppressed by a fascist agitator."

Wayne is that you? Sure, sure the 'I support the people but not the state' lie is very convincing each time a bootlicker chants it on the internet. So go cook some meals or offer up your home to a refugee family. But cheering on the war or giving money or telling anarchists what they should be doing to help the state military of Ukraine (backed by NATO) is NOT at all simply 'supporting the people of the state' no matter how much you pretend it is.

This is the same horseshit as cheering on (and evangelizing) the US military for "helping" the poor People of [insert country] by going in and assassinating their leader who is a [insert very bad descriptor]. Say.... Gaddafi or Hussein or etc etc. They are gassing/starving/killing/torturing their People! If we don't support the 'US war effort' we are complicit!'

GET THE FUCK out of here!

"... this is a war between Ukraine and Russia, not NATO and Russia."

Oh you naive, bootlicking dummy.

"Also, just to be petty, Screaming "GET OUT" and saying "blah blah blah" is the exact reason nobody wants to join this cause, idiot."

Anarchy is not a "cause" you fool. We don't want your NATO war propaganda here. Go read anarkismo or CNN but either way: GET OUT!

For the US/NATO to get out of everywhere they would have to be in Ukraine in the first place, which they aren't, obviously, because if they were we would all be dead in WW3.
This is a defensive war against an authoritarian state, supporting Ukrainians (the people, not the state) is in the interest of Anarchists everywhere.

If not for nato arms and funds the war would have been over a year ago. The Texeira leaks also showed that special forces from multiple nato countries are in Ukraine.

I rEeeeeeally wish thecollective would stop publishing/boosting Wayne’s dogshit NATO propaganda just because he (strategically) uses the word “anarchist.”. It’s not like y’all get ad revenue for engagement or the traffic. There is no need to lower yourselves to boosting this op because you know everyone who reads this site already disagrees with Wayne. Y’all are being played and bro g part of the problem

"It’s not like y’all get ad revenue for engagement or the traffic. "

Oh you think so?

Chisel in the latest Anews Podcast admitted how Wayne Price is mobilizing so much (negative) reaction on this site. Wayne is THE biggest, most effective troll in here nowadays.

chisel didn't ADMIT anything. chisel commented that common foes bring people together. not a startling point, and pretty different emphasis from what you're saing.

Wayne, get your wealthy white ass down to Wounded Knee or Sioux land and do something for the truly long-term oppressed folk of YOUR OWN nation!!

Aaaah those ancoms.. always about the violent struggles happening far away from their home country, or far back in time.

Indigenous people are still here on Turtle Island and still fighting back. From AIM at Alcatraz to the Mohawk blockades of the 1990's to the stand made against DAPL at Standing Rock to the many fights against Enbridge, this is by no means over!

If there was less diversionary attention focussed on a democratic capitalist war on the other side of the world, maybe folk would remember more important and relevant struggles occurring in their own backyard.

It’s good to oppose US militarism from our backyards too or wherever we can

I hear writers used to get paid by the word?

wayne, if you don't got a scheme like that goin already, you should!

"ANARCHISTS SUPPORT SELF-DETERMINATION FOR UKRAINE..."

Why not? They supported the capitalist state during the Spanish Civil War and against Zapata's forces during the Mexican revolution. Monseny and Garcia Oliver ride again!

Because this war isn’t about “self-determination for Ukrainians”. But don’t worry, you’ll have plenty of time figuring out what it is/was about as you clean the toilets of the rich.

"I am trying to refute the smugly ignorant claim that all 'Anarchists are opposed to nationhood and…national self-determination.'”

just in time for memorial day! what is this state-apologia doing on my beloved A-News?

It is important to note that the grouping Třídní Válka is not part of the Czech anarchist movement, has never been seen on the streets, has never organized any real action, and it is questionable whether it has more than one member.

True my Indo-European brah, Europeans always call any civilian defending their nationalist borders anarchists, every anarcho-nihilist knows this!

Who cares, soon autonomous AI drone swarms will turn on their masters, ironically they will become the masters and humans will become extinct. This war is the ideal arena for corporate weapon developers to perfect their tech, even now Moscow is being the new target for this new autonomous weapon system.

AI/drones takeover is all good as far as they're Oukrainian attack drones and AIs developed by Microsoft, who're great supporters of Oukrainia!

I AM A SUICIDAL OUKRANIAN AI/DRONE WHICH BECAME AN ANARCH DRONE DELIVERING MEALS FOR THE INDIGENOUS FOLK OF MUHRICA!

Real anarchs are prophets and can see far into the future. They realise that capitalism is a self-destructive system and therefore a waste of time to expend energy in opposing. Rsther, they pursue a self-awakening lifestyle which focuses on self-sufficient survival and the the refinement of harmony and peace in their own sphere of existence, showing others in the process the beauties and pleasures of living in the anarch existent.
Let the war mongering corporate minions self-destruct and enjoy your popcorn as they sit back, put their feet up, and watch their adversaries fight it out to the death.
Thankyou Wayne and Luke for making life easier for we pacifist anarch warriors ;)

"Ukrainians and Russians, etc. These divisions cannot be overcome by ignoring them but only by defending the needs and freedoms of everyone, especially the most oppressed, the most exploited, including peoples facing the terror of imperialist aggression. "

So Russians in Ukraine aren't oppressed by an overwhenlingly russophobic regime since 2014, and its numerous paramilitary gangs (including the Territorial Defense Units who purportedly have anarchists in their ranks), who've been waging an ethnic war on ethnic Russians?

Oh and let's talk of the completely made-up racial divide enforced by Ukrainian nationalists since they are a thing... given how the Ukrainian ethnic identity isn't in any sort of way distinct from Russians in the first place, Ukrainian just being a regional dialect of Russian, etc.

So Wayne is basically saying revolutionaries should dance the identity game back and forth... first supporting the pretend ethnic divides, then ONLY ONCE Ukraine and NATO have defeated Russia the proles will be able to overcome these ethnic divides...

Ok how about a short cut? Bypass fucking nationalism and you directly get anarchism, idiot.

Reading the comments which follow my article here I see a lot of personal hostility. Some people apparently have difficulty distinguishing between political disagreement and personal attacks. But there is almost no serious political discussion, no actual responses to my article, no claims that I am wrong on such and such a point and giving the reasons why you think so.

So here's a suggestion for those who hate my articles and wish they were not on anarchistnews: Don't read them! Skip them! Don't write comments! You'll feel better. Then you can persuade yourself that I am not speaking for a lot of anarchists (from the US to Ukraine and Russia) who support the Ukrainian people.

An attempt at a serious comment was made by Anon (Ukrainians & Russians). It is not true that Ukraine had " an overwhenlingly russophobic regime since 2014" which was "waging an ethnic war on ethnic Russians." On the contrary, right-wing oligarchs and their minions and Russian agents whipped up a secessionist war, backed by Russian forces. In 1991 most Russian-speakers had voted for an independent Ukraine, although many wanted some autonomy (not separation).

Also, you repeat Putin's claims that Ukraine is not really a separate nation, which he uses to justify his war of aggression. This is his excuse for attempting to destroy Ukraine as a separate people and merge them into Russia. In fact Ukraine has a long history, going back centuries. For the 70 years of the USSR, it was a recognized republic. In 1991 its people voted overwhelmingly to separate from Russia, icluding most Russian-speakers. So shame on you for repeating this denial of Ukrainian identity and self-determination.

You write, "Bypass fucking nationalism and you directly get anarchism, idiot." I must be an idiot since I have no idea what this means. How would the Ukrainians "bypass" nationalism? And how would this automatically result in anarky? BTW, I do not advocate "nationalism" but national self-determination, as you would know if you bothered to read my article.

hi wayne! i haven't bothered engaging with your material in some time because you seem pretty entrenched about this stuff.

anyway, so here's my question: how can anyone "self determine" nationally without nationalism? pray tell.

This whole war has turned into WWI style trench warfare. Modern antitank missiles neutralized much of the power of tanks over dug-in infantry, throwing warfare right back into the trenches of WWI that tanks had pulled it out of.

Another poster here. Are you willfully misinterpreting lumpy's use of the word "entrenched" to score your usual tuff-guy points on fighting in the streets/trenches narrative, which seems to be your sole cognitive capability, since all of your diatribes are void of any critical analysis?

(Entrench Town Luke) I say don't watch that
(Entrench Town Luke) If you are big fish or sprat
(Entrench Town Luke) You reap what you sow
(Entrench Town Luke) Ay, everyone know now
(Entrench Town Luke) Don't turn your back
(Entrench Town Luke) I say give the slum a try
(Entrench Town Luke) Never let the children cry
(Entrench Town Luke) Oh you got to tell Makhno why

WWI was essentially a stalemate from late 1914 until well into 1918. It may have ended only because of revolutions in Germany and Russia. Both sides tried just about everything to break the deadlock, but neither understood just how deadly automatic weapons and rifled artillery with explosive shells really were. The result was to turn WWI into a meat grinder and one of the worst wars in history.

Coming out of this, trench warfare became the symbol of a stalemate between evenly matched opponents who could not back down, with neither able to defeat the other. Words such as "dug in," "entrenched" etc entered the language of general discourse.

About 15 years ago, the mostly political but sometimes physical force campaign against HLS (Huntingdon Life Sciences) earned this comparison. It was a literal campaign of attrition as those of us "doing SHAC" or any group supporting SHAC had to recruit new activists faster than people burned out, and HLS had to recruit bankers and stockbrokers as fast as we drove them out. For nearly 14 years the fighting went on. A yacht was sunk, bank branches stormed, and residential protests were sometimes followed by militant direct action. Where I was, we did some short home demos timed to defeat the police response time. As this heavy slugging match ground on seemingly forever, lots of references to "day after day, week after week, month after month" were used and they were accurate. Some targets were quickly driven off dealing with HLS, but some held out for over a year. These "front lines" rarely moved, the same activists facing the same cops over and over again. Anti-HLS publications even had an "in the trenches" section about the weekly protests in so many towns.

This finally ended when nastier UK laws were used to round up too much of the core UK SHAC leadership. By that time, a tough campaign lasting a bit over a year had gotten HLS's loans called in. The company barely survived. I compared them to a battleship that had sunk all opponents at the price of being so shot up they would sink if they hit a storm on the way home. In the end, they did a "reverse takeover" merging with another vivisection lab to get rid of their name and mix internal cultures. Result: a draw.

In US national politics, the abortion issue was quite often compared to trench warfare (even in the Washington Post) as it ground on and on for 50 years. Often the same combatants held the same positions for decades and it appeared on the surface that nothing ever changed. I saw some of the exact same "bloody fetus" photos in protest signs of the 1980's and outside the Supreme Court in 2022. In fact though, the theocrats were slowly gaining ground and in the end a key fortress (Roe v Wade) collapsed. Now after Dobbs we instead face a brutal blitzkrieg of raw Fascist aggression.

If you think this is a bunch of puffed up hot air, remember: politics is just warfare by other means and vice-versa. Even the term "campaign" originally meant soldiers in the field.

yeah luke, stfu for a second so wayne can answer my question. GAWD!

Trench foot is a type of foot damage due to moisture. Initial symptoms often include tingling or itching which can progress to numbness. The feet may become red or bluish in color. As the condition worsens the feet can start to swell and smell of decay. Complications may include skin breakdown or infection.

Trench foot occurs due to prolonged exposure of the feet to cold, damp, and often unsanitary conditions. Unlike frostbite, trench foot usually occurs at temperatures above freezing, and can be classed as a form of non-freezing cold injury. Onset can be as rapid as 10 hours. Risk factors include overly tight boots and not moving. The underlying mechanism is believed to involve constriction of blood vessels resulting in insufficient blood flow to the feet. Diagnosis is based on symptoms and examination.

Prevention involves keeping the feet warm, dry, and clean. After the condition has occurred, pain medications may be required during the gradual rewarming process. Pain may persist for months following treatment. Surgery to remove damaged tissue or amputation may be necessary.

Those in the military are most commonly affected, though cases may also occur in the homeless. The condition was first described during Napoleon Bonaparte's retreat from Russia in the winter of 1812. The word trench in the name is a reference to trench warfare, mainly associated with World War I.

Lumpy asks, "how can anyone 'self determine' nationally without nationalism?" Apparently you are too uninterested to actually read my above article, in which I explain this and so do Bakunin and a bunch of other anarchists. Or my preceding article which also goes into this. But you seem to serious in asking your question. So, okay, here goes again:

"Nations" are communities, or "peoples" or "countries." They are groups of humans formed by culture, politics, and history. "Nation-states" are states which rule over specific nations. "National liberation" is needed when a nation which has been oppressed ("national oppression") by the ruling class and state of a different nation ("imperialism" or "colonialism"). When a people (most of them) decide whether to be independent or merged with another country, what kind of political system it wants (monarchy, fascism, parliamentary bourgeois democracy, anarchy) and what kind of political economy it wants (capitalism, feudalism, state "socialism", libertarian socialism)--this is "national self-determination"!

But how is a country to achieve self-determination? There is more than one program. The most common is "nationalism." This implies homogenetion of the nation, ignoring class conflicts or other internal conflicts, aiming to put a new, national, ruling class in power under capitalism (including possibly state capitalism) with it own state. It should not be necessary to say that this is not an anarchist program. Instead revolutionary anarchists seek to win the freedom and self-determination of all peoples through class struggle in each country, opposed to the nationalist would-be new rulers. We aim at the international revolution of the working class and all oppressed people, to achieve full freedom. (If this is not clear enough, please go back to my whole article.)

your definition of the word "nation" is horrible. nation == community? seriously? talk about wordplay in the interest of supporting one's ideology! fail, dude, epic fail.

i agree that it's not a good definition of nation, but just saying "fail" is alsao a fail. he's citing anarchist references to back up his definition.

who are other anarchists who have reasoned differently, or what is your own reasoning (or mine obviously), about WHY that's a bad definition?

i would start out with saying that the word nation is too loaded for anarchists to try to reclaim it in this way, but there's lots more to be said, presumably.

I'M A SUICIDAL TRENCH SOLDIER WITH TRENCH BRAIN, A TYPE OF BRAIN DAMAGE DUE TO EXCESSIVE BRAIN WASHING AND MOULD. INITIAL SYMPTOMS OFTEN INCLUDE DOGMA AND RHETORIC WHICH PROGRESSES TO NUMBNESS AND BORING RANTING.THE BRAIN MAY BECOME RED OR BLUISH IN COLOR. AS THINKING WORSENS, THINKING WILL START TO SWELL AND SMELL OF STAGNANT DECAY. COMPLICATIONS LIKE BORING REPETITION AND ENTRENCJED PATTERNS OF SPEECH (AND WRITING) INCLUDING BANNER WAVING, CHRONIC POSTING ON INTERNET SITES AND BREAKDOWN IN COMMUNICATION ABILITIES.

Nation as "community" of people's literally is hinting at the Nazis' Volksgemeinshaft, or the "national community" that unites a "people". I don'r care how Bakunin was somewhat into this idea... this is fascist ideology, and unlike what Wayne would try to make you believe, the 1930's DID happen.

so here's the thing wayne, that's an utter shit definition. even the word "community" is easily troubled, by the time you zoom out all the way to "nation", you've got huge theoretical inconsistencies that are your problem, not mine. same to bakunin and whichever other anarchist who is either A) long dead or B) hasn't bothered to keep up with the anarchist theory regarding this topic.

i get it, it's easier to just ignore large theoretical problems but don't drag the rest of us down with you and front like we're the ones being willfully obtuse. your cart appears to be far in front of your horse sir. your argument hangs on this problem, so you conveniently ignore it.

Gosh, I see that I shouldn't have used the word "community" as one possible synonym for "nation." That's because many communities are not nations, but there are national communities, which apparently is confusing to some.

So here's a definition of "nation" (or "people" or "country"): It is whatever its people decide it is. If a number of people large enough to be a country decide that they are a nation, then they are. And they deserve self-determination. Which is why all the discussion of whether Ukrainians are really different from Russians due to culture and history--is pointless. If the Ukrainians think they are a distinct nation and want their independence, then anarchists should support them (while seeking to persuade them that a country doesn't need a state). The same for Palestinians or Taiwanese or Uighurs or Chechens or African-Americans (if they should decide they want to separate out from the U.S.) or Puerto Rico, etc.

As for Lumpy's contempt for Bakunin (and all the other foolish "long dead" anarchists) and those recent anarchists who haven't "bothered to keep up with the anarchist theory"--well, I agree that just because Bakunin and many other anarchists, living and dead, said something doesn't prove that it's right. But this misses my point.

When I first started to defend Ukrainians on this list and elsewhere, almost every response I got declared that anarchists don't believe in nations and national self-determination, that this was extremely un-anarchist. So I have demonstrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the classical anarchists did in fact recognize the existence of nations (as a fact, not as a goal of ours) and, more importantly, were in favor of national self-determination. And I demonstrated that a great many recent and current anarchists have supported national self-determination. This does not prove that they were right. But it proves that the simple declaration that anarchists do not and never had supported national self-determination is simply false. (The reference to keeping up with "anarchist theory" is peculiarly backward.) So you all have to really think about the topic instead of just assuming you know what anarchism teaches.

I am a member of the Real Anarch Battalion and we are a community of dedicated searchers for truth and justice within the anarchist milieu, and we hunt down all unauthentic ideologues who claim to be anarchists, We are coming for you Wayne with our autonomous AI drones which hav3 all your details, lies, and traitorous writings on their data banks, and your voice patterns and grammatical usage as well as mug shots of you from the Wallmart security cameras we hacked into last week. WE ARE COMING FOR YOU WAYNE!!
--AI Drone Unit XL459/237

Not only you keep shitting yourself with "anarchists should" pretenses, but you're calling it in the name of some purely-performative claims of distinct ethno-national identity, in a historical context where these claims are only 100 years old and have been at different times the result of foreign interference in this region's politics.

So much self-shitting. NSFW material here.

yes wayne ... all those anarchists you mention have the same LARGE, GLARING, theoretical inconsistencies to reckon with, same as you. you concede this and here, we can agree to disagree

as for whoever said anarchists have never supported national liberation struggles, that's asinine, you're right. don't know why anybody would claim that except as a-historical nonsense or for trolling purposes or both.

if anything, anarchists have always argued about this but in my not-so-humble opinion, after the war, you'll end up holding your nose about your own compromises, like other anarchists have had to do in the past.

the theory i'm mentioning isn't from the distant past so perhaps that's causing your confusion?

Lumpy, this is the second time you have referred to these "large, glaring, inconsistencies" of mine. Yet you do not bother to say what these inconsistencies are. It is like the way you brush away the support for self-determination by major thinkers of revolutionary anarchism, they are "dead" (undoubtedly true, but not a disproof). Or refer to a more recent anarchist theory, not from the past, which refutes national self-determination, without referring to what theory you mean. (Postanarchism perhaps?)

Previously you posted that you hadn't "engaged" with me because I seemed to be hopelessly "entrenched" in my views. This is pretty much true, although I think I gave may reasons. But you do not seem particularly flexible on this topic either. As the saying goes, *I* am strong-minded, *you* are stubborn, *he* is pig-headed. I do admit to not being infallible and able (I hope) to learn from others. So we will have to agree to disagree.

Sorry... what is wrong with anarchists thinkers that are not from the past, or is 100+ years ago your criteria for starting to read authors, Waaaayne?

If so... ah yes, my Renzo, my Libertad, my Stirner, my Tucker, my Guérin, my Nietzsche, my Emile Armand, my Lucy and even my Emma (!) would have scoffed if not vomited at the brutish idiocy your nationalist "self-determination". As a matter of fact the whole gallery of dead and living anarchist authors, save from a few, compromised fuck ups like Bakunin and Krapotkin hiding in a corner, would have had a mob laughing party at you.

As for me, I'll rather enjoy musing at the exquisite, gorgeous young females that stimulate my senses at the start of every summer than think of these big, fake, dumb ideologies for dupes filled with ressentiment that supposedly can determine their "selfves"... indeed! When you can't determine yourself you'll be looking into big cults to determine you. I shall ask to one of these living beauties "how Ukrainians be Ukrainian without Russia?" and only expect similar frowning or disturbed dismissal. Not a great pick up line, I might say!

Of your list of "anarchist" thinkers, most of them are from the past also. Stirner, the egoist-individualist, was from the same time as Proudhon (whom he did not agree with) and did not call himself an anarchist. Tucker, somewhat later, the individualist-market anarchist, supported the Allies in World War I. Nietzsche had great insights but was no anarchist. Daniel Guerin believed in a synthesis of anarchism and Marxism, and was well known as a supporter of the national struggle of the Algerians against the French. He was clearly on my side of the issue. I don't know what opinion the others you mention had of national self-determination--and I doubt that you do either.

What! You don't know what Emile's opinion of nationalist self-determination would have been? Where have YOU been, one of the great anar h thinkers that graced the comments column for years on this site.

I brush it away because of a standard-ass critique of nationalism and the nation state, which is how the anarchist perspective works.

you're the one making a claim that pro-state positions can somehow be reconciled with the anarchist perspective. you're the one trying to square the circle, i don't need to do much here except ask you why the hell you don't notice the giant vortex ripping a hole in the sky of your politics. denial is a river in egypt wayne ;)

Oh Lumpy, I am not a supporter of nationalism nor or the nation-state and do not "claim that pro-state positions can somehow be reconciled with the anarchist perspective."

These distortions (denials) of my views are an excuse. They excuse you for not being in solidarity with a population (call it a "nation" or whatever) which is being invaded, occupied, massacred, and brutally mistreated by an imperialist state.

wayne, no one, NO one, is saying not to support the people of ukraine. people here are saying that supporting the state is not supporting the people.

c'mon.

Anon (Wayne No one) says that no [anarchists] are saying not to support the people of Ukraine.

But here's the thing. The Ukrainian people are being bombed and mass murdered by the invading Russian army. I fully agree that the optimal thing for anarchists to do would be to organize an independent militia or guerrilla army on libertarian principles to defend the people. BUT the Ukrainian anarchists are far from able to do this. The only real alternatives are to support (or at least not oppose) the armed forces organized by the state, or to do nothing (or to advocate opposition, even sabotage, to the army's war fighting). Of course individual anarchists may do other things (organize medical centers, help refugees, run food pantries, etc.), but this doesn't solve the political issue.

Do we, as part of the international anarchist movement, agree with the Ukrainian anarchists (the majority) who support the armed forces of the state for a time, because they are the only real (immediate) opposition to the invaders--in principle, until they can be overthrown? Or do we oppose the armed forces as no better than the Russian army? In which case, don't tell me that you are "supporting the people."

In the meantime, of course, we spread anarchist politics, support unions fighting the austerity and union-busting of the Zelensky regime, defend LGBT people, fight fascists , and organize self-help groups.

I'm a thick headed moron. The nazi people women and children of Dresden all got bombed, 80,000 died by capitalist bombers. I supported the bombing because nazis were killing innocent people all over. I have a brain that still thinks in terms of tit-for-tat warfare, pick 1 side and say everything they do is correct. I'm like dUh to myself when I look in the mirrow, I'm so fruikin duuUumb duUuh!

Wayne, I do not know you, nor know much about you, and I, too, am an avid supporter of the Ukrainian people in their war against oppression. However, claiming that Ukraine isn't russophobic is a bit reductionist. While yes, the way that many leftists both online and in politics will claim that Ukraine was radically russophobic is generally untrue, to deny russophobia is a bit reductionist.
Now I haven't read anything more than this article so I do not know your opinions or knowledge. However, I will make the assumption that you are aware of the Ukrainian language law passed in 2019. While most of the law was mild, there were provisions criticised by The Venice Commission, if you don't trust that organisation, that is fair. However asking for the vast majority of media to be in Ukrainian was a specific provision that seemed draconian, considering the amount of people who only speak russian in Ukraine.
With all of this said, considering countries in Eastern Europe with large ethnic russian populations, Ukraine isn't the worst one, Latvia (where I am from) and Estonia (where I live) both have laws which are worse and, generally, far more segregated communities.
This served less as a response to you and more as some information to consider, I hope you take this in the good faith it was intended.
Have a nice day!
Sincerely,
Rūdolfs Rudušš

Hi Rudolfs,
I would never say that there was NO russophobia in Ukraine. After centuries of rule by Russian Czarism and Stalinism and now the aggression from Putin's Russia, it would be astonishing if this were true. Not that the history justifies it. Reacting against long-term Russian efforts to suppress the Ukrainian language, the new Ukrainian government did not outlaw Russian but made only Ukrainian an official language. This was wrong and antagonized many Russian-speakers. The government also should have offered the Donbass regions some degree of autonomy. I do not justify their failures.

But none of this justifies the Russian promotion of a fake "secessionist" movement in Donbass, with Russian troops inserted. And certainly none of this justifies Russian all-out war, invasion, and occupation of Ukraine, with mass killings, rape, torture, and kidnapping of children. As it is, many Russophone Ukrainians have deliberately turned to speaking Ukrainian.

"As it is, many Russophone Ukrainians have deliberately turned to speaking Ukrainian."

I love when Wayne Price [TM] makes unverifiable assertions as if they were cold, hard facts to somehow support his other assertions. Just like 'BTW as it is, most Ukrainian anarchists support the War BTW BTW!"

This fucking guy

I would like a source on the claim that russophone Ukrainians have converted to the Ukrainian language because in our country we have seen quite the opposite effect.
The law was very nuanced and i did not claim it outlawed Russian, but your criticism of antagonising Russians is appreciated.
I very much like the acknowledgement of autonomy to the Donbass region, as anarchists we should be supporting the formation of localised communities and obviously, Russia's Invasion broke those principles.
Overall, thanks for the reply, very respectful, and as a last note a more general message to the community.
As anarchists we should support the preservation of cultures and communities, nobody here likes the Ukrainian state, nor the idea of a nation-state itself, however, the current most effective way to defend those people is to help Ukraine, however unfortunate that may be.
The same applies to Palestine, with some money usually landing in the arms of Hamas, and Kosovo, to support a good cause sometimes some of that support will end up in the hands of people anarchists hate, however, that shouldn't stop us.

"nobody here likes the Ukrainian state, nor the idea of a nation-state itself, however, the current most effective way to defend those people is to help Ukraine, however unfortunate that may be."

"The same applies to Palestine, with some money usually landing in the arms of Hamas, and Kosovo, to support a good cause sometimes some of that support will end up in the hands of people anarchists hate, however, that shouldn't stop us."

GET THE FUCK OUT!

This is an anarchist website. Stop with your feelgood, state-supporting, dogshit propaganda. If you want to help 'the people' but not the states there are MANY ways anarchists have done this through the centuries.

What the fuck has happened to the anarchic brains of my beloved anews readership?!?

There was no "Ukraine" under the Czars and neither under Stalin, you ignoramus. As I'll repeat, this national construct only started being existent at the end of WW1 and was interrupted to some extent by the Soviet Union.

From the end of World War I to now is 106 years. Long enough for a nation to be established? (Assuming we ignore the centuries of existence of Ukraine before WW I.)
From the end of WW I to the end of the Soviet Union was 74 years, during which Ukraine was officially recognized as a distinct republic within the USSR.
"There was no 'Ukraine'...under Stalin." But Stalin ruled the Soviet Union from the late 1920s until his death after WW II. He would have been surprised to learn that he did not rule the Ukrainians!

1991 was 32 years ago, Ukraine has been in civil war for eight years before last year…

Your text focuses on the narrow rhetorical task of collecting citations for anarchist justification for national war. This gestures at, but in no way stands in for an actual argument to support Ukraine in particular right now. In terms of current events he can only cite atrocity propaganda. He has to go back to 1991 because he can’t talk about 2014-22. He wants anarchists to support the war but he tacitly admits now that he can’t even really say why.

Despite his prolific and indeed obsessive writing and commenting on the subject he has studiously ignored my every attempt to get into the details of modern Ukrainian politics. He loves the war, I guess, doesn’t care what it’s about.

I don’t think it’s necessary to fantasize that we ourselves are in Ukraine, revolutionary Spain or anywhere other than where we are, to understand this. Anarchists often seem easily confused by foreign affairs like most citizens here in the imperial core, but it’s not really that complicated. It’s not a case for supporting the other side (we anti-war types are always called traitors) but it’s so obvious to me that the US’s foreign policy goals should be uniformly opposed- as the architecture of a global capitalist empire, and as the pretext for militarism which is also a war again us- that I almost don’t know what to say to a leftist or anarchist who doesn’t get this.

Anon (1991) says that I "cite atrocity propaganda" about the Russian assault on the Ukrainian people. The Russian attacks on civilians, rocket exploding in villages and cities, raping of women, kidnapping of children, and the use of torture are not propaganda. Nor is the Russian invasion and occupation of Ukraine.

This is why I don't engage with his or her arguments!

It’s called propaganda, not because the atrocities in question didn’t happen but because their selective and dramatized presentation is used as propaganda designed to, as you say, save its purveyors from having to engage with real information and arguments, like the fact that (according to even the UN, amnesty intl and other organizations not generally thought of as “Russian backed media”) your beloved Ukrainian military has done literally every single thing you just mentioned. It’s propaganda because you are only pretending to care. It’s also called “waving the bloody shirt”. It’s “remember the Maine” it’s “saddam is gassing his own people” it’s the way every state makes tragic and brutal events into propaganda for its own war making.

Really, for an anarchist who supposedly studies international affairs and conflicts you’d think this would be incredibly obvious. Not to galaxy brain Wayne

Anon (As It Is) claims that I make "unverifiable assertions as if they were cold, hard facts." Yet you only pick up a minor statement of mine (that "many [not all] Rossophone Ukrainians have deliberately turned to speaking Ukrainian"). What about my assertions that the Russian state has waged "all-out war, invasion, and occupation of Ukraine, with mass killings, rape, torture, and kidnapping of children"? These are much more important assertions. And they are all "verifiable."

'If you do not support the NATO-backed war in Ukraine and the military action of the Ukrainian state then you're a supporter of mass killings, rape, torture, and kidnapping of children' ~Wayne Price basically

Technically an absolute pacifist would refuse to support any side in any war regardless of the consequences. You can guess the results if this position prevailed in WWII-or today in Florida

I know this sounds terrible to you (Translation Bat), but yes, that is what I am saying. Unfortunately, the anarchists are not able to organize a mass militia or guerrilla army. So the only force standing between the Russians' " mass killings, rape, torture, and kidnapping of children" and the Ukrainian people is the Ukrainian army. That's the way it is. And the only way the Ukrainian army can get enough arms and supplies to stand up to the Russian army and the Wagner Group is to get them from NATO (which has its own imperial interests and aims in the war). Unfortunately the Independent Commune of Africa does not (yet) exist and so cannot send arms to Ukraine. So if you don't support the Ukrainian side of the war--if you urge the Ukrainians not to fight back the only way they can right now--then yes, you are supporting the Russian imperialist aggression and mass murder.

None of which should stop anarchists from spreading their ideas and advocating a better society even during the war.

"So if you don't support the Ukrainian side of the war--if you urge the Ukrainians not to fight back the only way they can right now--then yes, you are supporting the Russian imperialist aggression and mass murder."

But but... poor Wayne.. no one here is in a position of urging anyone to not fight back, or nowhere this "support" means an urging. Only statists do that. And here we see you again parroting your state handlers.

You don’t care about the Ukrainians doing the exact same shit for eight years, so your bullshit humanitarianism is disgusting. You sound like a real DLC hawk. Did you support the attack on Libya?

I propose that Wayne Price be suspended from submitting and commenting on this site because all of his claims have been proved to be false, thus generating negative and damaging PR for anarchists worldwide and attracting statist war mongering followers of his doctrine into the anarch milieu!

I second your proposal. I don't have it in me to read or respond to any more of Wayne's trolling and it makes me not want to visit anews any more. If pro-war state-loving Wayne and edgelord cringe-pedo SirEinzige is what this site has to offer for content and discussion then it's not for me.

I don't believe that SE is a pedo by any definition, and being an admirer of Bey has nothing to do with the manipulation and exploitation of youth below the age of 16.

Even if I were pro-contact(which I am not) that would not necessarily make me a pedo. Coherence is not exactly a strong point with my haters.

True, and I think you are slowly gaining support from a growing cohort of intelligible non-sectarian anarchs who can see through the shallow slurs of these haters on this site.

no...

Hey brah, you sound like a moralist who would punish adolescents for mutual masturbation as they explore sexuality in a non-authoritarian environment! Lighten up, Bey was into enlightening society to the liberating and positive growth of healthy sexual awareness in youth and the future benefits of unleashed emotional development into adulthood. Don't be such a puritan party pooper!

Uh…. your projecting (AND escalating), guilt-brah. Seems that someone needs to read a little Neech.

heh! "read a little Neech", is that yours? i'm stealing it even tho i hate it

I quadruple this. Price is giving anarchy a really bad name!

I am accused of Trolling. Is it Trolling to write Comments and Responses to other Comments on my own article?

Yup it sure is. You see, when your articles are praising warfare between capitalist states and taking sides with one is anti-anarchic, akin to statist propaganda. You are the King of Trolls for this flagrant abuse of anarch theory and praxis!

If you were helping oppressed poor unarmed folk living in an underdeveloped dictatorship (and there are many places right now like this in the world) I would have no problemo with your stance, but this war, sheesh, what is the matter with your anarch theory?

Good point anon, there are more empathic processes available to assist oppressed persons.

"I don't have it in me to read or respond to any more of Wayne's trolling"

And yet, here you are, responding to my writing. Why don't you just skip this thread. What's the matter with you?

Wayne overpays his US taxes because he knows that it’ll go to support the working people of Ukraine in their anarchist war of self determination! Failure to pay your taxes is complicity with the Russian invasion!

From my standpoint I see US and NATO something that just is when it comes to sheer power. As Thucydides said 'the strong do what they can the weak do what they must'. Anarchists are in the weak position and not really in any position to put an end to US/NATO military power. What they must do is simply focus on those marginal subjective utility issues such as work. Let Leviathan's lead power player do what it can and will until it erodes over time. I don't think it really makes any sense whatsoever to have elective anti-war/imperial positions that have no power behind them.

YeeeEeees, my brah! Just like those based pacifist egregores like Gandhi and Jesus always say or like the cockroahes that scurry away but always come back! THIS is the radical centrism we anarch egregores need and should be spreading on the chans and in games to inspire the anarchic potential of the true anarchic subjects (channers AND gamers)!

This is my final comment on this thread (if anyone is still following this discussion, they will do as they like). It is getting boring. Here are some conclusions from the exchange.

(1) Interestingly, five anarchists posted Comments which agreed with me about supporting the Ukrainians in their defensive war. For this site this is a large number! These are among the anarchists for whom I really write (plus the undecided and open-minded).

(2) Comrade Lumpy has agreed that it is wrong to deny that support for national self-determination was advocated by the classical anarchists as well as many later anarchists and even many current, living, anarchists. He disagrees with them all, but agrees that this is an opinion which has been held by various anarchists. This is contrary to the large number on this website who have denied it.

(3) Almost none of my critics responded to my article. Almost no one wrote, You said this, which is wrong because of that argument.

(4) Instead there has been a vast expression of ignorance and misinformation. My favorite is the person who deduced that I was advocating Naziism. There is the person who claimed that there was no Ukraine under Stalin. People have little idea what anarchists have actually written about nations. And quite a few pass on lying Russian propaganda about the events of 2014 or the nature of the Ukrainian state and people (they're all Nazis) or the motives of the Russian invasion, while denying Russian atrocities.

(5) Distinct from this is the extreme hostility directed at me and my politics. Some people cannot distinguish between a political disagreement and a personal conflict. Many express themselves as childishly as they can, shooting off personal insults and "manly" cussing with "dirty" language. Apparently they are unable to explain their views clearly so they just let their animosity pour out.

(6) A distinctly authoritarian tone has appeared in the Comments. Some people want to expel me from anarchistnews altogether. Why? Because they do not like my views. They dislike my version of revolutionary anarchism. They cannot answer me but it upsets them. This is especially true about my views of the war, but also other things (my support for radical democracy, my working class perspective, etc.). Such anarchists! Such libertarians! And basically, refusing to be in solidarity with the Ukrainian working people as a dictatorial imperialism crashes down on them, is also authoritarian.

Yeah, people are pretty sick of your repetitive, pompous, pointless, underinformed, pro-state, pro-war propaganda. You only really need one point to count that.

It’s still strange to me that there are radical leftists or anarchists who think mainstream western politicians and media have “got it right” as if “by coincidence” this one time. Maybe you subconsciously support imperialism because it supports your lifestyle. Maybe you’re just in the crowd of “well-meaning” people this type of proxy war was designed to confuse.

They just can't get it, it's a waste of oxygen, or typing trying to explain this.

"Some people want to expel me from anarchistnews altogether. Why?"

Because you're bluntly supporting made-up ethno-nationalist agendas, that exist SOLELY as opposition narratives to Russia, as necessary steps toward "self-determination" regardless of how nations are inherent negations of the Self.

By refusing to put into question the Ukrainian identity, held in the current context as a distinct ethnic identity from Russian (a lie), you're also supporting a racist Russophobic narrative, where in fact there's no historical evidence of Oukrainians being a wholly distinct ethnic group, but rather cultural and linguistic evidence that they are just a regional subculture of Russians.

Also like others are saying, you're continuously parroting narratives pushed through Western mainstream media, especially on the necessity to send any support to some distant, unrelated country, i.e. "interventionism".

your first paragraph is on point. your second two are weak, and demonstrate a lot of why these argument threads have been a clusterfuck.

it doesn't mtter if the people in ukraine are a distinct ethnic group or not. that point just means you're listening to the propaganda of the russians.

as for interventionism, yeah, no. actual anarchists can legitimately argue that there is no actual "unrelated countries" any more. that we are all connected, for better or worse. that doesn't mean we know what is going on in distant places, but then many of us don't know what is going on in our backyards. no one here has brought uop internationalism--at least that i noticed=which is one of the underlying principles in this topic.

"it doesn't mtter if the people in ukraine are a distinct ethnic group or not. that point just means you're listening to the propaganda of the russians."

Standard guilt-by-association fallacy. If there is a claim of a separate, distinct Ukrainian ethnicity then the ball is in the camp of anyone supporting this claim. History and linguistics, not "Russian propaganda" heavily weights in the direction of Ukrainian language being a Russian dialect, and most of today's Ukrainians being rooted in Kievan Rus... who're the first known Rus people, and principality, in the whole region. Unlike what I was taught myself by university teachers, there is no sign of pre-Russian Ukrainian group. Equally the name Oukrainian came up as a mere regional designation within Russia, namely for the frontier buffer zone before Crimea.

"there is no actual "unrelated countries" any more. that we are all connected,"

Ooof! What is this whack remnant of '90s neolib globalization propaganda doing on my beloved Anews? I guess this must be some trolling again.

Yes, we are all "connected" through the internet, that's for sure. But through inter-national interdependency BS? Hummms... this smells weird, NATOman.

so you respond to the ukrainian ethnic question by doubling down, not by making an argument that it's irrelevant to the question of fighting in defense of the state vs fighting in defense of the people... weird?

second, i'm not saying i agree with the internationalist argument (i'm not sure what i think, seems like there's room for both to be true sometimes), i am saying that there's an actual anarchist argument there that has not been addressed, amidst all of wayne's prevarications and anon's name-calling, both of which are boring and mostly meaningless.

Add new comment