mobilisation ukraine

When war breaks out, tendencies that already existed but could be hidden or denied become fully apparent. Before war, it is easy to mask statist attitudes with anti-authoritarian rhetoric, but in times of war, it becomes clear how false and hypocritical this rhetoric can be. In the following commentary, we demonstrate this using the example of Solidarity Collectives and their supporters.  

In an article by Solidarity Collectives (https://www.solidaritycollectives.org/en/biopolitics-of-war-forced-deportation-of-ukrainian-children/), we can read passages referring to Foucault's thesis on biopower: "The biopower of the modern state is not limited to punitive or prohibitive functions; it monitors birth and death rates, mandates vaccinations, enforces quarantines and mobilization measures."

While this statement is true, in the case of Solidarity Collectives, it is applied in a manipulative and selective manner only to the invading Russian army and the Russian state authorities. Their article draws attention to the abduction of children and their forced assimilation. However, neither this nor any other of their articles pays the same amount of attention to the abductions of men by the Ukrainian army and their forced deployment to the front lines, where they often die, even though they would prefer to leave and go to safety.

Solidarity Collectives continue their war propaganda by claiming: “Thanks to a Yale University study conducted as part of the Bring Kids Back UA campaign, we currently know of 19,546 children who have been forcibly transferred or deported to the territory of the Russian Federation — but the actual number of children cannot be calculated under conditions of occupation and active hostilities.“

Why do we call it war propaganda? Because it involves selective use of information with the aim of portraying one state at war as the aggressor and other state (or pro-state) actors as innocent victims. They talk about 19,546 forcibly displaced children. Although the number of men in Ukraine forcibly displaced to the front exceeds this number, they do not mention this figure or write about the fact that this is happening and that it is necessary to fight against it, just as it is necessary to fight against the abduction of children by the Russian Federation.   

Solidarity Collectives continue: “This is a textbook example of biopolitics in a totalitarian style: under the pretext of “rescue” or “evacuation,” the child becomes an object of state policy — their life is planned, altered, and utilized, as if they are not a person but a tool. In essence, it is the colonization of the future.” 

Again, one can agree. And again, one can ask the question: Why don't Solidarity Collectives take the same perspective on the proletarians who are becoming the subject of Ukrainian state policy in Ukraine—whose lives are planned, altered, and utilized as if they were not a person but a tool? 

There are many examples from the past and present that war destroys human beings not only through extermination, but also through pressure to change the personal character of those who manage to survive. Victims of war often become aggressors themselves or open or "silent" supporters of aggressors. They are sensitive to specific suffering, but remain indifferent to others. For example, they express sympathy for children kidnapped by the invading army, but men who are kidnapped and sent to their deaths by the "domestic" army do not receive such sympathy. There is a distorted bipolar view here: the invading army is absolute evil, the army of the occupied state is pure good. Only two poles are seen, and nothing in between. Moreover, these poles are often described in abstract rhetoric of good versus evil or by reproducing false opposites such as fascism versus anti-fascism, dictatorship versus democracy, imperialism versus anti-imperialism, etc. 

If the perception of the war situation is so distorted, it is no wonder that while the abduction of children by the Russian army is portrayed as a war crime—which it undoubtedly is—the abduction of men of military age is labeled as necessary defense or even ignored altogether. Those who advocate this logic accuse their critics of Putinism or of sharing pro-Russian propaganda. According to them, we must not draw attention to the abductions and forced sacrifice of men in Ukraine because Putin uses this phenomenon in his war propaganda. As if our reasons for talking about something were the same as Putin's motivations. We must talk about important issues, even if our enemy exploits the same issues. We must clearly reveal our different motivations, thereby contributing to a comprehensive solution that, in addition to combating abductions—carried out by both Russia and Ukraine—also includes combating Putin's propaganda and the practices of all imperialist blocs. 

We criticize here what is well known to those who look back on the events of World War II. Hitler, the Nazis, gas chambers, the Holocaust, war expansion—all of this was used to justify silence about Stalin's gulags or repression of the labor movement in America and Great Britain. But not only to remain silent, also to join forces with American, British, and "Soviet" imperialism in the name of the anti-fascist popular front. Different times, different wars, but still the same tendency to "defend" or downplay domestic tyranny because the "external" enemy is portrayed as the greatest, most threatening of all and, moreover, exploits tyranny in certain territories in its propaganda to "defend" its own tyranny.   

Solidarity Collectives say: “Russia often masks its aggression as “anti-fascist struggle,” invoking liberation rhetoric, but the practice of deportation, forced Russification, and erasure of children’s identities is no humanitarian mission. It is an act of imperial violence, justified by the logic of biopolitics.” 

We agree with this. However, we would like to add an important fact: Ukraine often masks its aggression as an "anti-imperialist struggle" invoking liberation rhetoric, but the practice of deportations, forced conscription, and travel bans from the war zone is not a humanitarian mission. It is an act of imperial violence, justified by the logic of biopolitics. 

And to all those who would like to downplay this violence by questioning its imperialist nature, we would like to remind them of one fact: the Ukrainian army is dependent on military supplies from European and American imperialism, so it is difficult to argue that on the one hand there is an imperialist aggressor — Russia — and on the other, a defending non-imperialist victim — Ukraine. An ally of the imperialist powers can hardly deny its participation in imperialist aggression. The imperialist actors providing military equipment to Ukraine are also providing it to Israel, which is committing genocide in Gaza. Ignoring these connections will certainly not help us develop a serious analysis that would enable us to constructively change reality. Bad analysis leads to bad conclusions, and bad conclusions lead to tragic practices. 

- Anonymous anarchists 
- February 2026

Comments

Lefou (not verified) Sun, 02/22/2026 - 02:30

Unfortunately, even in benevolent collectives, that annoying innate human tendency to observe herd morality ends up undermining most endevours, but at least they tried,,,

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Mon, 02/23/2026 - 14:02

Anonymous Anarchists declare: "the Ukrainian army is dependent on military supplies from European and American imperialism, so it is difficult to argue that on the one hand there is an imperialist aggressor — Russia — and on the other, a defending non-imperialist victim — Ukraine. An ally of the imperialist powers can hardly deny its participation in imperialist aggression."

Would you apply this consistently to other cases? Was the South African ANC an "Imperialist aggressor" for getting aid from the imperialist Soviet Union when fighting apartheid? Was Vietnam, resisting U.S. imperialism, an "imperialist aggressor" for taking aid from the Soviet Union during the U.S.-Vietnam war? Were the Palestinian resistance forces, fighting Israel and the U.S., "imperialist aggressors" for taking aid from Iran, a regional sub-imperialism? Were the American revolutionaries "imperialist aggressors" during the revolution against Britain for taking aid from French imperialists?

The Ukrainians, facing the much more powerful Russian empire, take arms from wherever they can. This would be true even if Ukraine was a free commune of communes (without conscription) instead of run by a capitalist (but non-imperialist) state. BUT it is the Ukrainian workers and oppressed people who are doing the fighting and dying and being bombed and murdered (and whose children are kidnapped), not any of it imperialist supporters (who are aiding it only for their own interests).

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 02/24/2026 - 16:57

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

The American revolutionaries were imperialists because they were literally fighting for their own empire, for their own tyranny over their slaves and over Native peoples and their territory. Not because they were aided by the French king. That just makes them extra full of shit. They were not even against monarchism. They just sought to make themselves monarchs over Black and Native people.

Ukraine also isn't an imperialist state just because it gets arms from an imperialist state. Ukraine is now the biggest arms importer in the world. But the main reason they're imperialist is because they helped invade Iraq, exported arms to Saudi Arabia and Myanmar and support the US blockade of Cuba and Israel and America's attacks on Iran.

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 02/24/2026 - 17:28

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

not taking a side in this fight (although price rarely makes points i agree with), but the idea that motives on one side of a fight can ever be simplified the way 16:57 is doing is ridiculous. 

"The American revolutionaries were imperialists because they were literally fighting for their own empire, for their own tyranny over their slaves and over Native peoples and their territory."

saying there was only one, hegemonic reason why people were fighting a war is very... flat. 

anonymous (not verified) Wed, 02/25/2026 - 14:23

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

"saying there was only one, hegemonic reason why people were fighting a war" is also not what the person you're replying to did.

Naming motives =/= claiming there are no other motives. But you probably know that & are doing it anyway.

anonymous (not verified) Wed, 02/25/2026 - 03:06

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Let's also add that since Ukraine has been exporting weapons to foreing fascist militaries like SA and Israel, in the midst of a war where they're expect to need those weapons in the first place, means that Ukraine is additionally a cover for illegal arms trade. No international policing bodies would go after Ukraine for it, because "Ukraine good, Russia bad". Hence, a perfect scam for military industries to make extra profits, on top of those they're making already with this endless war.

But the same is also happening on the Russian side. Military industry on both NATO and Russian sides was only booking the past few years. This is what lies behind the Waynetarded national-populism; i.e. same-old, purely cynical, capitalism.

anonymous (not verified) Wed, 02/25/2026 - 08:42

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

“national liberation” is the most reactionary, overtly bourgeois notion to infect the confused minds of anarchists and leftists. leave it for the liberals, fascists et al. who simply can’t make do without it. the “nation” is not a primordial reality, it is a construction of nationalism, which is a byproduct of capitalism just like pollution, war, etc

anonymous (not verified) Wed, 02/25/2026 - 10:49

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

mostly i agree with you, but there are groups of people who use the word differently (or seem to), and while i think we need to be wary about the concept, i also think we want to have the flexibilitly to not be entirely dogmatic about words.

anonymous (not verified) Wed, 02/25/2026 - 15:39

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Not anon 08:42, and I'm aware of that other, more traditional usage for "nation", which is so.ehow synonymous with an ethnic group, that hasn't got defined borders or even a clear territory. They exist by fact of distinct culture, history, language and sometimes lineage. They don't need any political identitary claim to be existent, as they are existing.

A 100 years old national identity construct pushed by Euro empires to justify their stronghold or influence in a region; that's not it. But that's what "Ukrainian" is. Ukies are inherently Russians, just a regional kind of Russians. They've been Russians since there are Russians in the region, as they are thr former Rus people. It's not, like, the Basque, the Bretons, the Kurds, the Karens, the Touareg or whoever else, who're distinct ethnic groups from the other people in the region thry inhabit, Wayyyyne....

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Wed, 02/25/2026 - 17:06

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

It is common for imperialists and colonialists to deny the reality of peoples they oppress. The old Czarist empire denied that Poland was a real, separate, nation. The French, after WWII insisted that Algeria was really a part of France. The Israelis long argued that there was no such thing as Palestinians--just Arabs who had no special tie to Palestine. The Chinese Stalinists declare that Taiwan is not a separate country.
And Putin (and the preceding anarchist) denies that Ukraine exists--just Russians here!

There is little point in reviewing the history of Ukraine. For example, Ukraine was a specific Republic in the USSR for 75 years at least. But the real question is this: What do the people think? Do the Ukrainians mostly regard themselves as Ukrainians? Especially now that Russian imperialists have been bombing, massacring, and raping its people? If they do, I don't care what their thousand year history says. As an anarchist I am for the people deciding who and what they are.

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 02/26/2026 - 03:32

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

Wayne... national identity is a political construct. Empires choose to use or deny it whether it suits their Raison d'État.

...and for a counter-example directly tied to this:

- Ukrainian national liberation was created by the German & Hungarian empires with the Ukrainian People's Republic during WW1 to undermine the Russian Empire as *they were at war with each other*, and they've always been anyways. That's where the current Ukraine national flag is from, damn it. But then they got beaten pretty easily by the Makhnovist insurgency when they lost foreign military support after the war. There is zero instance of a national movement in the region prior to WW1.

- the post-Soviet republic of Ukraine, as well as its territory, is a direct product of the Brechnjev Soviet administration.

- Ukraine is a product of not anti-imperialist struggle, but inter-imperialist conflict. There is no such thing as an independent, autonomous Ukraine in this context, where it's been heavily invested with foreign finance, institutional, technological and vast military resources for at least two decades, either or both by Russia and NATO countries. Germany even now has a Rheinmetall plant being developed in Ukraine. This goes beyond just "military aid". This is embedded imperialism (as with any case where foreign imperialists implant institutions and industries in a colonized country, in a permanent way), under the guise of "anti-imperial struggle".

Feel free to plug your ears and go "LALALALLAALA... it's the Oppressed People's Sovereign National Will to decide!" , but the historical facts are there, regardless of what Pootin is saying.

Making up facts, with distortions or outright lies, is just what the Ukrainian nationalist movement has been doing, predictably, just like any damn nationalist movement does. Nationalism is myth-making. Its "linguists" and "historians" have all been just rounding corners to make Ukrainians look to Western institutions like this unique ethno-national group that's detached from Russians. I even heard in a Western university historiolinguistics class claim that they were a several thousand years old ethnic group, and that was back in the late '90s!

So as for facts... yes, they can be used for statist interests. If there's an elephant in your room, it is there. The fact Pootin sez the same doesn't make it a lie, *in itself*.

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Thu, 02/26/2026 - 16:52

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

As Anonymous 3:32 writes, "This is embedded imperialism (as with any case where foreign imperialists implant institutions and industries in a colonized country)." Right: Ukraine is a "colonized country" where "foreign imperialists" struggle over economic and political domination.

That Western imperialism competes with Russian imperialism for domination over Ukraine, over who can make it a full colony, does not mean that there is no such thing as a Ukrainian country, a Ukrainian people. That the UK "owned" India under the Raj did not mean that there was no such thing as Indian peoples. That the U.S. owns its colony of Puerto Rico does not deny Puerto Ricans their nationality.

After the break-up of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainians voted to separate out as an independent country. And the majority voted to orient to Europe rather than to Russia. Whether Ukraine existed for a thousand years or just since the fall of the USSR is irrelevant. This was their choice today, their "vote" being backed by a terrible war of defense. Anarchists should indeed warn of the dangers of U.S. imperialism, of the nationalist State and the regular army. But we do not confuse the people with the State. We should be on the side of the people, despite its capitalist State not because of it.

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 02/26/2026 - 07:08

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

You do realize that saying national liberation is wrong because the nation/people is a social construct not a "primordial reality" is the stupidest possible argument against it? Workers are a social construct too. Women are a social construct. Should they not be liberated from capitalism and patriarchy because workers and women aren't primordial entities? Absolute nonsense. The double standard applied to national liberation is literally just a result of racism and chauvinism. You're an imperialist concerned with losing your stolen property/status.

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 02/26/2026 - 14:04

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

These are stupid conflations. The nation is a concept of a blurry political entity supposed to represent a group of people, according to some politicians' designations.

Women are people, not a concept, you scum.

Workers too, but by occupation, not by being.

As far as everything in language is concept, they are, just like everything- concepts... but some concepts are directly tied to existing people. A nation, not exactly.

Keep your nationalism elsewhere. This is an anarchist site.

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 02/27/2026 - 08:51

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

A social construct isn't just a concept you absolute fool. It's something that people construct in material reality. Take your marxist class reductionism elsewhere, this is an anarchist site. You know anarchism, like Bakunin, Michel, Malatesta etc. all supporting national liberation. Unlike your racist hero Engels.

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 02/27/2026 - 10:05

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Keep your nationaltard shit elsewhere, still!

Let's look at Italy -previously known as the Kingdom of Italy- that also used to be that cool nationalist project back in the 19th century... and up against the Euro empires of the time! More precisely the Habsburg empire... who btw was also behind the Ukie nationalist movement later on.

But but but, what is happening to those struggling for actual anarchist projects and praxis in Italy these days? Aaaaaah... see?

So yea, go get fucked by your cheap straw men and these identiarian national spooks in some dark corner, thank you. Fuck fascism East and West and Left & Right, especially.

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 02/27/2026 - 15:01

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Hey marxist moron, ever heard of an Italian named Malatesta? He was an anarchist, something you wouldn't understand, and he supported national liberation while at the same time opposing nationalism. He knew Italy's history much better than you do. He supported Cuban independence from both the Spanish and the Americans and at the same time said Cubans needed to keep fighting against Cuban capitalists and rulers. He was pretty smart and was actually against fascism. Unlike idiotic racist marxist trolls like you who carry water for Western imperialists.

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 02/28/2026 - 03:13

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

"an Italian named Malatesta" YEAAAA u moron, I heard about him.

Speaking of Cuba... I wonder what he would have said of the fate of Cuban anarcho-syndicalists, or any independent labor organizers after the "independence"?

But let's look into what Malatesta has said of the Boer national liberation movement...

"Personally, judging at their true value the “mad dog” of Berlin and the “old hangman” of Vienna, I have no greater confidence in the bloody Tsar, nor in the English diplomatists who oppress India, who betrayed Persia, who crushed the Boer Republics"

The fucking Boer... A bunch of White supremacist inbred colonizers engaged in the enslavement and murders of Black native Africans.

So I guess that Malatesta shouldn't be held as a saint? Maybe maybe the guy wasn't that well-informed in his stances? I suppose the fact he died, and as a victim of Italian national-fascism, makes all his positions and ideas sacred and beyond any arguing...

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 02/28/2026 - 13:22

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Imagine drawing the conclusion from Malatesta's mistake about the Boers that Black South Africans should have remained under the rule of the Boers, just because national liberation is bad according to nonsense marxist dogma.

And imagine not actually reading what I said Malatesta had said about Cuba after independence from Spain, so that you have to "wonder what he would have said of the fate of Cuban anarcho-syndicalists, or any independent labor organizers after the 'independence," as if Malatesta hadn't already said keep fighting against Cuban rulers and capitalists.

Do you have to go to school to become this stupid or does it come naturally?

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 02/28/2026 - 14:43

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Everyone back then fucking knew where the Boer were from, you racist scumfuck. They knew it was a Dutch colonial project and likely a lot of people also knew that there were Black people being enslaved by these settlers.

I don't have to go back to your high school level of "intelligence"and historical "knowledge", sorry!

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 02/28/2026 - 17:22

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

You're the one arguing that Indigenous Africans should never liberate themselves from European colonizers because marxism says national liberation is bad. You're the fucking racist one you dumbfuck.

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 03/01/2026 - 02:09

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

What a cheap-ass, early high-school kid attempt at double straw men... Do you even fucking know marxism? That all the fucking Left national-liberation movements since the '50s were marxist-inspired in the first place?

WHYYY is this retard even allowed to post their ignorant dogshit comments here? Noooooooo... what happened to my beloved Anews!?

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 03/01/2026 - 08:25

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

it's obvious that this is one person talking to themself. perhaps you will publish this exchange in some future autoerotic fiction piece?

A different Anon (not verified) Sun, 03/01/2026 - 10:43

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

Wayne, did you support the Afghan Mujahideen when they fought the Soviet invasion in the 1980s? Did you continue supporting them when they started fighting the US as Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS in the 1990s & later? Did you support Donbass separatists when they were fighting Ukraine from 2014-21? Your logic here implies you should have.

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Mon, 03/02/2026 - 15:25

In reply to by A different Anon (not verified)

A Different Anon raises tough questions. Should revolutionary anarchists support struggles for national self-determination even if they are led by reactionary and repressive forces? Again, I point out that *in principle* we should support the people, and not the state (or would-be state) of the nation. *How* to do this is a practical and tactical matter, best determined by the people involved.

This is not a new problem. When Fascist Italy attacked Haile Salasie's Ethiopia, many anarchists were on the side of the Ethiopians, despite Ethiopia's medieval, slave-holding, dictatorship. When Imperial Japan invaded China (then an impoverished, colonized, country), many anarchists supported China, in spite of its Nationalist dictatorship (and rising "Communist" dictatorship). When French imperialism waged brutal war on the Algerians, French anarchists gave material and political aid to the nationalists, despite the likelihood that a post-French tyranny would be established.

When the U.S. invaded Vietnam, I and my comrades supported the Vietnamese, even though we did not have illusions in the Stalinist leadership of the Vietnamese forces. It was the job of the Vietnamese to decide on what kind of political and economic set-up they should have, not that of the U.S. army nor of U.S. anarchists. This did not stop us from saying out loud what our opinion was of the Vietnamese Stalinists (to denunciations from the rest of the Left).

As to the various awful movements led by reactionaries, we defend the people and oppose their current nationalist-statist-capitalist misleaders. Whether we join in united fronts with them depends a great deal on how popular the nationalist leaders are, whether there are more than one organization with more than one program, whether the people are generally in support of these leaders, how repressive they are (that is, would they shoot anarchists if we openly participate in the broad movemen), and so on. (Many of these issues were fought over within the anarchist movement during the Spanish Civil War.)

The Donbas separatists vs. Ukraine is a different issue. I am uncertain just how much popular support there was among the Donbas people for separation and how much was manipulated by Russian imperialism. If I thought that it really was a popular revolt for independence, then I *would* have supported the separatists--even though it was a mistake for them to separate, inevitably leading to their being dominated by the Russian state. But I doubt it,

FUCK NATIONS (not verified) Wed, 03/04/2026 - 05:02

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

Anarchists naturally fight against imperialism, colonialism, apartheid, etc. However, they view these issues from a class perspective rather than a national or nationalist one. Anarchists under the rule of colonialists or imperialists do not support nationalist projects of national liberation, because that would mean joining forces with the local bourgeoisie and fighting for its liberation from a rival in the other camp. Anarchists fight against colonizers and imperialists from neighboring countries, but they also fight against their "own" bourgeoisie and their "own" state. The national liberation struggle is always a nationalist struggle for one faction of the bourgeoisie to have the dominant "right" to exploit, oppress, and massacre the local section of the working class. Why should we care what language the bourgeoisie that exploits us speaks? Why should we care what nation the bourgeoisie that exploits us promotes?

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Wed, 03/04/2026 - 14:40

In reply to by FUCK NATIONS (not verified)

(1)You, FUCK NATIONS, declare, "Anarchists ... view these issues from a class perspective rather than a national or nationalist one." In adopting a "class perspective" you disagree with probably most of those on ANews, judging by the Comments sections. I agree with you so far.

But while class exploitation is central to our society, it is not the only form of oppression, or hadn't you heard? There is also the state, white supremacy, patriarchal/male privilege, and anti-ecological "domination of nature." Also (as you mention), imperialism and colonialism (the exploitation of oppressed peoples by the ruling class of an oppressor nation). Capitalist class rule is central, intertwined with all these other forms of domination; it supports them and is supported by them. But it is not *counterposed* to them. Rather than say, "No War but Class War," we should say "No War but War Against All Oppression!"

(2) While appearing to speak for "anarchists," you ignore that many revolutionary anarchists have supported ant-imperialist, national liberation, wars (as I have demonstrated many times before).

Bakunin wrote, "“Nationality...denotes the inalienable right of individuals, groups, associations and regions to their own way of life. ...And this is why I will always champion the cause of oppressed nationalities...."

(3) You write, correctly, "Anarchists fight against colonizers and imperialists from neighboring countries, but they also fight against their "own" bourgeoisie and their "own" state." But, unlike Bakunin and most revolutionary anarchists, you do not make a distinction between a country's bourgeoisie-and-state and the country's workers and oppressed, its people. It is the working people of Ukraine who do not want to be ruled by the imperialist Russian state, who do not want to be bombed and massacred, to be raped, to have their language and culture suppressed, who object to having their children kidnapped, and their limited democracy replaced by Putin's dictatorship. The Ukrainian rulers have their own reasons, but anarchists are first and last on the side of the people. Bakunin wrote, “The State is not the homeland…. I feel frankly and always, the patriot of all the oppressed homelands.”

Pepe (not verified) Thu, 03/05/2026 - 01:34

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

This intersectionalist bullshit is just a modern form of social democracy and reformism. Of course, there are various forms of oppression, such as racism, transphobia, patriarchy, etc. But anarchists know that these forms of oppression can only be effectively fought from the perspective of class struggle. All these forms of identity politics and intersectionalism are just a way of abandoning the class perspective and adopting the position of bourgeois individualism. Look: we have rainbow capitalism, anti-racist capitalism, anti-imperialist capitalism, etc. Why should we support this shit? Women will not be freed from patriarchy unless working women fight against capitalism, which also means fighting against bourgeois women, who are also oppressed by patriarchy. No one will free themselves from imperialist oppression by collaborating with the domestic bourgeoisie and another imperialist bloc.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Pepe (not verified) Thu, 03/05/2026 - 01:51

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

Wayne, I don't really care what Bakunin said at this point, because what matters more is what the living proletarians are saying, who are being bombed by the Russian army on one side, while the Ukrainian army is forcing them to go and die on the front lines. Bakunin said and did a lot of interesting things in his time, but also a lot of bullshit. Now he's dead. I'd rather listen to living people who sabotage the war and reject all armies in the war than people who quote dead anarchists from the safe distance of their homes, where no one is bombing them or forcibly mobilizing them.

AronA (not verified) Thu, 03/05/2026 - 03:06

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

Wayne, when you talk about many different forms of oppression, you should also mention how privileged white men support the Ukrainian army, which massacres deserters, kidnaps men from the streets, and protects the borders so they cannot flee to safety. Add this fact to your list of oppressions. And remember: you are part of this oppression.

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 03/05/2026 - 04:25

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

"Bakunin wrote, "“Nationality...denotes the inalienable right of individuals, groups, associations and regions to their own way of life. ...And this is why I will always champion the cause of oppressed nationalities....""

Well, Saint Bakunin was just plain wrong here. Or he could have been *righted* by Carl Schmidt. Nationality is politically-defined identity -not individuality- applied to a category of people, usually based on birthright and state-provided status, and used in a way as to erase -not recognize the rights of individuals. Individuals are not, by definition, part of any nation, as nationality is a collective identity. We are citizens and nationals only as part of a national group, a "nation's people". The individual, or ego, or unique, is something more specific and elusive, while at the same time being the only real, physical living being there truly *is*. Even a culture or ethnic group is not existing... but only being by relation with others. The individual, once born, is self-existing. The conditions of their survival are another thing, tho.

Bakunin -or you- might wanna go argue with the millions of refugees struggling to survive due to their lack of national recognition.

anonymous (not verified) Wed, 03/04/2026 - 22:31

In reply to by FUCK NATIONS (not verified)

You're thinking of Marxists not anarchists. Marxists reduce everything to class. Anarchists historically didn't. Neither Bakunin, nor Michel, nor Reclus, nor Kropotkin, I could go on for a while, were class reductionists like you, but as a Marxist, I'm sure you're neither aware of this nor concerned with it, now that you've been informed. Head over to marxistnews.org where your comment belongs. I don't care that the person trying to eliminate my nation/people speaks English so much as I do that they're a violent settler colonist fighting for their imperialist settler state. I'm not gonna unite with genocidaires just because they're working class. Just like striking workers don't automatically unite with scabs. As a moronic Marxist, this will be much too much for you to comprehend. Log off and crawl back under the bridge.

Dimitrios (not verified) Wed, 03/04/2026 - 23:09

In reply to by FUCK NATIONS (not verified)

The text seems to equate national liberation struggles with nationalism, but this identification is neither self-evident nor historically accurate. To discuss the issue properly, it is important to distinguish between three different concepts: national struggle, nationism (ethnic/national consciousness), and nationalism. Nationalism is an ideology that elevates the nation as the supreme political value and is usually connected with the state, hierarchy, exclusivity, and often domination over other peoples. In many cases it functions as an ideological tool of states and ruling classes.
Ethnism, or Nationism if one preferes, on the other hand, can be understood as the simple consciousness of belonging to a community — shared language, historical memory, culture, and a sense of collective identity — without necessarily implying domination over others or the absolutization of the nation. It does not necessarily have to be statist or aggressive. A national liberation struggle may arise from the need of a people to free themselves from colonial or imperial domination. The fact that many such struggles eventually resulted in the creation of states that reproduced class hierarchies does not mean that the original conflict was merely a struggle between rival bourgeoisies. In reality, such struggles are arenas where different social forces and political visions coexist and compete.
Equating every national liberation struggle with nationalism risks ignoring the concrete conditions of colonial domination and the lived experience of societies attempting to free themselves from it. Criticism of nationalism is entirely legitimate; however, it should not lead to a theoretical simplification that conflates distinct historical and political phenomena.

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Thu, 03/05/2026 - 17:29

In reply to by Dimitrios (not verified)

Malatesta wrote, “…True [anarchist-] socialism consists of hoping for and provoking, when possible, the subjected people to drive away the invaders, whoever they are.”

This is an interesting discussion. Opinions range from Pepe’s rather mechanical classism to a Stirnerite individualist anarchist. Most agree with the original author against self-determination of oppressed nations, such as Ukraine (no one openly rejects the Palestinian struggle, I notice).

But several others are mostly in agreement with me. They see the distinction between the capitalist state and the (mostly working-class) people (nation, country, whatever). They realize that revolutionaries can still oppose the state of an oppressed nation while supporting its people against an imperialist aggressor, by any means necessary.

Pepe denounces “intersectionalist bullshit” as reformism. Women’s liberation, he declares, cannot be won without overthrowing capitalism. I agree. But I also think that capitalism cannot be overthrown without also overthrowing patriarchy!

Pepe also doesn’t “care what Bakunin said at this point, because what matters more is what the living proletarians are saying.” He assumes that the Ukrainian proletarians are against both the Russian state and the Ukrainian states. However, I doubt that many Ukrainian workers are presently revolutionary anarchists; from what I have read, almost all Ukrainians are for Ukraine winning the war and Russia being defeated (even those who flee conscription, for personal safety, are unlikely to be opposed to the war as such). Anarchists have to find ways of winning them over, which cannot be done by refusing to support their war against invasion and aggression.

AronA and Pepe both sneer at me for being a“privileged” white man. This is ironic The world is full of oppressed and exploited nations, dominated by the monopoly capitalist empires of a few great powers. Most of the world is people of color. The main imperialists are white people. Yet my critics oppose national self determination for all the world. My critics oppose anti-imperialist wars against the main imperialisms (the U.S. and Europe including Russia). It is anarchists from the U.S. and Europe who can afford to sneer at the national struggles for freedom of most of humanity. (Which, of course, cannot be fully achieved without an international revolution of the working class and all the oppressed.)

Jaime (not verified) Sat, 03/07/2026 - 04:49

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

Wayne writes: “even those who flee conscription, for personal safety, are unlikely to be opposed to the war as such”

Why are you writing such fucking speculation? Maybe you could ask the people who fled directly. But you probably won't do that, because they would answer the opposite of what you claim here. I personally work with proletarians who fled mobilization. They all reject war and criticize pro-Ukrainian nationalism. I don't speculate, but ask them for their opinion face to face. How many proletarians who fled mobilization are you in contact with, Wayne?

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Mon, 03/09/2026 - 14:02

In reply to by Jaime (not verified)

You, Jaime, may be right, that I am assuming too much as to the views of Ukrainian draft resisters. But I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that you are also exaggerating more than a little when you write of "proletarians who fled mobilization. They all reject war and criticize pro-Ukrainian nationalism." ALL of them? Are you implying that they are anarchists and pacifists or revolutionary internationalists? Are they (all) rejecting Ukraine's self-defense because they oppose all states, while being unable (like you) to distinguish between an imperialist state and a colonized country?

Jaime (not verified) Tue, 03/10/2026 - 05:57

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

I was talking about proletarians who fled mobilization, and I am in direct contact with them or have read interviews and their personal statements on the subject of war and militarism. All these people fled mobilization and are against war, i.e., against all states at war and their armies. It is important to support them, even though they may not be anarchists and may not have developed class consciousness. They are proletarians who are practically opposing the war. They are not fucking academics who preach to others from their monitors that they should go to war or that we should ask states for more weapons for war.

Jaime (not verified) Tue, 03/10/2026 - 06:05

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

Wayne, let's try an experiment. Disconnect from your smartphone screen for a moment and connect with the real world. What do I mean by that? Go out on the street and talk to people who have fled mobilization about Ukraine's self-determination and whether they should go to the front to support this self-determination, even at the cost of killing themselves or someone else. But be careful: someone who opposes mobilization and war might kick your ass. :-)

Jaime (not verified) Sat, 03/07/2026 - 05:00

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

Wayne, you may have overlooked a few facts:

1) The life of the working class is still occupied, even when the proletariat is not in a war zone. When an imperialist power invades a neighboring country, it enforces occupation through violence, repression, intimidation, imprisonment, suppression of opposition, enforcement of loyalty, etc. Every state does the same thing to its "own" population even in times of capitalist peace. Before the war in Ukraine began, the livelihoods of the working class in Ukraine were occupied by the Ukrainian government. Perhaps you have a problem calling it occupation. But every day I feel that my life and living space are occupied by the power of capital, even though my home is not currently under attack by drones.

2) The Ukrainian army does not oppose the Ukrainian state, but primarily serves to protect the Ukrainian state and the private property of capitalists. The "anarchists" who serve in this army support precisely these pro-state goals. If they claim that they are fighting for the people and not for the state, then this is just a rhetorical maneuver to mask reality. Serving in the state army and thinking that you are supporting the struggle against the state is an oxymoron. If anarchists want to fight against an imperialist aggressor, but at the same time resist their own state, then they must look for tools other than the state army and frontline combat.

3) Neither you nor I know the exact numbers of people who support the war and those who oppose it. But revolutionaries cannot use mechanisms similar to democratic parliamentarianism. If we counted all the "votes for war" and found that there were many, revolutionaries should nevertheless oppose this majority and not populistically follow the masses, if the masses were promoting absolutely reactionary and counterrevolutionary goals.

Rebelempath (not verified) Sat, 02/28/2026 - 03:32

Is it some primeval instinctual tendency which contructs this Manchean binary jingoism which erects these sordid borders of paranoid self-emergence? Why this herdish dumb-downing identity cliché based on chest thumping rhetoric and peurile tantrums, in adults? *sigh*

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
Q
f
v
#
d
g
#
N
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.