Bakunin on National Self-Determination

From "Black Flag Anarchist Review by Wayne Price

Of all the questions dividing anarchists and other libertarian socialists, perhaps the most contentious is that of national self-determination. In recent years this has become a particularly fraught issue with the resistance of the Palestinians to Israeli domination, and, even more, the defensive war of the Ukrainians against the Russian state’s invasion. The question became even more immediate with the U.S./Israeli assault on Iran. Many deny that anarchists can support the efforts of oppressed peoples for independence from imperialist domination.

In my opinion, it can be a useful contribution to examine what Mikhail Bakunin, a founder of revolutionary anarchism, really thought about the self-determination of oppressed nations. (I am not discussing conflicts where both sides are imperialist and colonialist, such as a war between the U.S. and today’s China. In such a case, anarchists would oppose both sides in favor of international revolution.)

In a selection of Bakunin’s writings, Sam Dolgoff (1980) summarizes: “Bakunin argues that the nation-state is not a natural community. He defines the contrast between Nationality, one’s natural love for the place and the people with whom one is reared and indissolubly connected, and Patriotism, the absolute power of the state over its native subjects and conquered national minorities.” (p. 401) Bakunin had a two-sided view of the issue. He was for “the place and the people” but against the State, the bureaucratic-military-capitalist institution which ruled over them.

Bakunin declared, “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. And this is why *I will always champion the cause of oppressed nationalities* struggling to liberate themselves from the domination of the State.” (same; my emphasis)

By calling nationality a “natural fact,” he did not mean that it was biological but that it develops through unplanned historical interactions. By “the domination of the State,” in this instance, he means the domination of the foreign imperial State.

He goes on to say that with “the abolition of the accursed state,” he expects nationalities, provinces, and communes to freely federate from the bottom up. “Socialism is federalist.” (p. 402) (Bakunin called himself a “revolutionary socialist” as well as an anarchist, unlike some current anarchists who reject the “socialist” label.)

Bakunin distinguished between the State and the nation (country, people, national community, or homeland). Although they interact and overlap, he distinguished between them in principle. He opposed “nationalism” because it did not make this distinction but rather subordinated the homeland-nation to the State and its ruling class.

He declared that “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….” (Guerin 1970; p. 67) This was not nationalism—he remained completely opposed to national States—but anarchism.

After Pan-Slavism

Before he became a revolutionary anarchist, Bakunin was a leading pan-Slavist. He advocated democratic revolutions to free Poland and other Eastern European nations from the Russian, Prussian, and other empires. As he evolved into an anarchist-socialist, he did not abandon his belief in national liberation. He continued to support the struggles for self-determination of Poland and the other Slavic countries. “His project of national liberation of the Slav peoples was not supplanted or completely reconsidered but incorporated into his revolutionary socialism….” (Correa 2024; p. 430) It became integrated with the goal of class liberation of the peasants and workers exploited by their own nation’s rulers.

Bakunin wrote, sarcastically, “Both in international relations as well as relations between classes [one must] always be on the side of those who others want to civilize.” (Correa 2024; p. 406) In his study of Bakunin’s life and theory, Correa writes, “The defense of internationalism and anti-imperialism in no way means abandoning national liberation struggles.… After all, engagement in these causes does not inevitably imply support for the State since [the State] is not synonymous with nation, race, or homeland.” (same)

Bakunin declared, “The State is not the homeland….That is why I feel frankly and always *the patriot of all the oppressed homelands.*” (same; p. 407; emphasis in original.)

The great revolutionary asserted, “Every people, weak or strong, every nation, large or small, every province, every commune has the absolute right to be free, autonomous, to live and govern themselves according to their particular interests and needs.” (same) This does not rule out federations of free peoples, which he advocated. Correa summarizes, “When, because of national domination or imperialism, this self-determination is being undermined, it is the duty of every revolutionary socialist to accept this *patriotism of oppressed homelands*—that is, an *anti-imperialist perspective.*” (same; emphasis in original)

As a revolutionary anarchist-socialist, Bakunin asserted his “strong sympathy for any national uprising against any form of oppression” and recommended that dominated peoples review the history of the Spanish guerrilla war against Napoleon’s army. (Guerin 1970; p. 68)

Bakunin vs. Lenin on National Liberation

What is striking is how much Bakunin’s support for the self-determination of oppressed peoples is an integral part of his anarchism. He rarely just speaks of the rights of nations separately from other social forms. In the quotations I have cited above, he refers to “the inalienable right of individuals, groups, associations and regions to their own way of life.” He mentions “each individual, each association, commune, or province, each region and nation” and “Every people, weak or strong, every nation, large or small, every province, every commune.” For him, freedom and self-determination should be at every level and in any way involving human society. *This is what he meant by anarchism.*

Lenin advocated national self-determination as one more of his party’s demands. And it was transactional: his goal was to win over the people of oppressed nations so that they would—eventually—agree to voluntary mergers into a centralized single unit. It would become a country with a centralized economy, managed by a centralized State, overseen by a single centralized party. This will, he hoped, end in a centralized world society—a monstrous vision.

Some ignorant anarchists claim that national self-determination was invented by Lenin and therefore cannot be an anarchist idea. I have demonstrated, by referring to the words of Bakunin, that this is factually untrue. The reverse thought was expressed by Daniel Guerin:

“True internationalism rests on self-determination, which implies the right of secession….Lenin and the Congresses of the Third International adopted this concept from Bakunin, and the Bolsheviks made it the foundation of their policy on nationalities and of their anti-colonialist strategy—until they eventually belied it to turn to authoritarian centralization and disguised imperialism.” (Guerin 1970; p. 67)

It is unlikely that Lenin adopted any concepts from Bakunin, given Lenin’s low opinion of anarchist theory. In any case, the right of national self-determination was raised well before either Lenin or Bakunin. It was part of the early democratic program, from the 17th century on. This included free speech, freedom of assembly, habeas corpus, election of officials, land to those who work it, the right to bear arms, the equality of all before the law, and so forth. These demands were only honored by the capitalists’ State when under pressure from below. They are now under siege in the present-day decline of capitalism—as appears in the international rise of ultra-right and supposed-left authoritarian governments.

Some people argue that they are all for national self-defense against imperialist aggression, but not if the oppressed nation has a State. As anarchists, they say, they cannot support the oppressed country against the imperialist invader. Unlike Bakunin, they confuse the nation with the State.

Currently all oppressed nations either have their own States (such as Ukraine) or are led by those who want to set up a State (such as Palestine)--with the arguable exception of Rojava. Unfortunately anarchists have not yet persuaded the working people of these countries of a no-state solution. Therefore to oppose these countries in their national resistance is to reject—in practice—all cases of national rebellion, whatever your abstract opinion. Such a stance will continue to make the people think that anarchists have nothing to say to them.

Conclusion

The Brazilian anarchist Correa notes that many anarchists downplay or ignore Bakunin’s solidarity with oppressed peoples. He suspects this has to do with Western imperialist prejudices.

“There is, on the part of different researchers, a minimization of the theme of national and anti-imperialist liberation in Bakunin’s life and work from 1864 onward. Perhaps this is explained…by the fact that these researchers live, in most cases, in the central countries of the North Atlantic axis.” (Correa 2024; p. 307)

I do not quote Bakunin because I think that his writings prove that my views are correct. Bakunin was not a holy prophet and his writings are not sacred scripture. Some things he got wrong, in my opinion. We are anarchists, not Bakuninists. (For an overview of Bakunin, his contributions and his errors, see Price 2025.)

However, (1) his writings demonstrate the falsity of claiming that real anarchists never support national self-determination. Bakunin declared himself “the patriot of all the oppressed homelands” who “will always champion the cause of oppressed nationalities” and expressed ““strong sympathy for any national uprising.” And clearly Bakunin was an anarchist.

(2) Bakunin argued that the State and the nation (homeland) were distinct. Anarchists were opposed to the State and sought to overturn it, while rejecting the statist ideology of “nationalism.” (Anarchists develop tactics for what to do when statists are leading the national resistance and the anarchists are not yet strong enough to turn it into a social revolution.)

Bakunin supported the peoples, the homelands, the nations, against oppression by the rulers of other nations. This was seen by him as part of internationalism, not opposed to it. He expected nations to associate through bottom-up voluntary federation. “Socialism is federalist.”

(3) Bakunin demonstrated that countries’ self-determination, as he saw it, was integral to his vision of anarchism. A program which supports self-determination for individuals, communities, cities, self-managed industries, regions, and provinces, but not for nations, would be a peculiar sort of anarchism.

Anarchism means stateless and classless freedom, equality, community, and democratic self-determination for every part of society, at every level and in every way.

References

Correa, Felipe (2024). Freedom or Death: The Theory and Practice of Mikhail Bakunin. (Trans.: Jonathan Payn). Montreal/NYC: Black Rose Books.

Dolgoff, Sam (Editor) (1980). Bakunin on Anarchy. Montreal: Black Rose Books.

Guerin, Daniel (1970). Anarchism: From Theory to Practice. NY: Monthly Review Press.

Price, Wayne (2025). “Bakunin’s Anarchism Reconsidered: Review of Freedom or Death: The Theory and Practice of Mikhail Bakunin by Felipe Correa.” https://itha-iath.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Wayne_Price-Bakunin_Re…

*written for Black Flag: Anarchist Review