by thecollective Feb 11, 2025
image for voices from ukraine

from lukas borl

 

In the past, I have published an extensive analysis of how specific individuals and groups try to isolate me, attack my private life, they’re threatening my safety and sabotage the Anti-militarist activities I engage in. One of the examples given was a description of how a member of the Trhlina infoshop and the Anarchistická federace (Anarchist federation) told a friend of mine that I was at risk of a strong reaction from militant anti-fascists. In other words, the person from Trhlina and the Anarchistická federace was threatening me. At that time it was not yet clear whether the threat would come true. Now it is clear. On Saturday, February 8, 2025, I was physically attacked by one such militant anti-fascist in Prague’s Club 007.

 

What happened?

The attacker waited until most of my friends had left the club, followed me into the toilets, where he punched me several times in the face. No, I’m not surprised he chose such an insidious method. I’ve seen so much scheming from his cronies that I expect nothing but meanness, unscrupulousness and hypocrisy from them now.

Before “Mr. Hero” physically attacked, he also tried to “explain” to me in a few words that I should not oppose the defense of Ukraine. He did not give me any chance to express my arguments as to why I do not support the defence of Ukraine or the defence of Russia, the defence of the Czech Republic or the defence of any other state. I am an anarchist, therefore I fight against all states. Against fascist states, as well as democratic, stalinist, monarchist…
Instead of defending Ukraine – that is, a particular state and its regime – I prefer to support and defend the working class living on Ukrainian territory, because on the one hand it is now being massacred by Putin’s invasion, on the other hand it is being subjected to persecution and repression by the Ukrainian government, as well as to severe exploitation by Ukrainian capitalists.

I think explaining something like that to the person who attacked me would be pointless anyway. I doubt he would understand the basic gist of it. It wasn’t the first time he’s shown me that he has a strong penchant for harsh macho posturing but lacks serious political analysis.

I can’t keep quiet

I think it’s important to talk openly about this incident in public. It is a concrete example of the hypocrisy of those who spread statements on the Internet in which they style themselves as innocent victims who are being harmed, while in reality they are inciting and supporting aggression against opponents from the anarchist milieu.

I won’t hide the fact that I was shaken by this incident. I really felt a lot of frustration, anger and a sense of helplessness. But I soon processed these strong emotions. Thanks, among other things, to the people who stood up for me, gave me the emotional support I needed and reassurance that I was not alone in this.

Even though I know there are legitimate reasons to use violence against some people, I don’t feel like retaliating right now. It’s just that, just as a cornered animal can bite hard to get out of danger, I suppose I might act the same way in a similar situation. I’m not a pacifist , and I know there are times when one’s bare hands are not enough to defend oneself. Anyone who attempts to attack me and/or my friends again in the future should be aware of this.

My black eye and the pain in my face will certainly fade with time, but my willingness to support anti-war activities will remain. I’m sure of it. Whoever attacked me may not realize it, which is why it’s important for him and his macho crew to read this: I will not be intimidated! What happened that night only makes me want to continue on the path I’ve set out on.

For those who also want to follow this path, I would like to recommend supporting the fundraising for deserters and war refugees organized by the Anti-Militarist Initiative (AMI).

I also recommend getting the publication Voices from Ukraine. In these publications, the anarchist collective Assemble from Kharkiv illustrates the positions of revolutionaries living in a place where war is raging.

Tags

Comments

Tim Declercq@ (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 12:35

Anti-fascism is the worst product of fascism, as the Bordigists say. A point which seems aptly illustrated here, with a militant anti-fascist punching an anarchist to make him stop opposing the defense of the state.

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 12:55

Although I am very critical of the positions of Bordiga and the Bordigists, in connection with this incident the same quote came to mind: "Antifascism is the worst product of fascism." ...

History is full of examples of how antifascists promoted the defense of the state (democracy, Stalinism, republicanism, etc.). We also find many examples of how antifascists promoted class collaboration with the bourgeoisie and thus helped to suppress revolutionary movements and workers' class struggles. I recommend an excellent text on this topic: Fascism/Antifascism - Gilles Dauvé https://libcom.org/article/fascismantifascism-gilles-dauve

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 13:02

Another thing interesting about Bordiga is that he seemed to understand revolutionary defeatism a little better than you and your crew do, regardless of how strongly he subscribed to it. Which isn't too surprising given how much of a Leninist he was and how little you and your crew examine the ideas of Lenin, the person from who's policy (revolutionary defeatism) you've taken the name alone, in order to pursue the ultra-crude Trotskyist "no war but class war" politics that Lenin opposed with his revolutionary defeatism (without reference to any differences between anarchist anti-politics and statist socialist politics).

"...the best opportunity for reaching that end was the military defeat of one’s own country, and that the political form after victory was to be the dictatorship of the proletariat, which in turn is the first precondition for the following task of socio-economic overthrow."

https://libcom.org/library/immediate-program-revolution-amadeo-bordiga

Notice Bordiga says "military defeat" not the defeat of a national bourgeoisie by its own proletariat, but that he also claims that such military defeat provides the "best opportunity" for the victory of the proletariat. This is in sharp contrast to your comrades' Trotskyist policy of taking no stance on the military defeats and victories between belligerent states.

Tim Declercq@ (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 13:18

"how little you and your crew examine the ideas of Lenin"

Yeah, I've only read like dozens of his books and articles. Thank you clairvoyant anon for telling me how much I have examined the ideas of Lenin, may I suggest that your clairvoyance still needs a bit of work though?

As none of your other points, even though addressed to me, seem to be related to anything I said (I just made a short comment on how this text by Lukas reminded of that Bordigist saying) I don't think there's much to say here.

Tim Declercq@ (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 14:23

You know what the problem with stupid people is? Not just that they are incapable of reading/analyzing a text without agreeing with it, just like they are incapable of considering a proposition without accepting it, but that they are also stupid enough to be unable to conceive of the fact that others can, and so they project these intellectual limitations of theirs on others.

What I said is that I read Lenin, not that I agree with him. But if you really want to get your panties in a bunch, here's a little secret: I've even read a text or two by Stalin as well.

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 14:29

TImCel, we all remember, unfortunately, when you first arrived at anews with all your tankie bullshit. We're still not impressed. Don't forget to change your undies.

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 14:34

Technically, a person could read every word Lenin ever wrote and still not spend even one second publicly analyzing the meaning behind what he wrote and how the reader's ideas resemble and differ from his. Just like someone could read all or none of Lenin's words and still appropriate his slogan "revolutionary defeatism" but use it to refer to Trotsky's crude no war but class war politics, which is one thing Lenin was responding against with his revolutionary defeatism. Which is what various initiatives like ANTIMILITARISTICKÁ, Tridni Valka and Anarchist Communist Group UK do, all while completely ignoring what the anarchist position was on inter-imperialist wars, anti-militarism, etc, in contrast to both Trotsky and Lenin. Here you repeat this by simply saying you've read lots of Lenin but refusing to offer any comment on what your own understanding of his ideas is? We're supposed to take on faith that you understand a lot about Lenin's ideas simply because you say you've read a lot, even though your actual words betray a severe lack of understanding by confusing Trotsky's politics with Lenin's.

Tim Declercq@ (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 14:49

"what various initiatives like ANTIMILITARISTICKÁ, Tridni Valka and Anarchist Communist Group UK do"

Well I'd have you know that I am not a member of either AMI, Tridni Valka, or the ACG.

"your actual words betray a severe lack of understanding by confusing Trotsky's politics with Lenin's"

And what words are those? Can you quote them? Because it seems to me that you're responding to whatever things you may have read wherever and are just ascribing those words to me. Which is a tad tedious to say the least. If you have a concern with something I said, then quote what I said and express your concern. If you have a concern with something someone else said, then take it to them.

Lastly, if your concern is about appropriating slogans like "revolutionary defeatism" or "no war but the class war" then I can tell you that you shouldn't waste your time trying to find quotes of me using them. Mostly because I don't talk in slogans at all, I find the whole thing a tad weird to be honest. Slogans are how you communicate to the masses, and we don't have masses listening to us, we have maybe just a handful of people who would listen to them anyway. In which case I much prefer to simply argue in full with such people instead of going into sloganeering. Same reason why I don't make a blog even as some have suggested me doing so, as I much prefer direct back-and-forth discourse instead of monologueing into the void. Not that I have anything against others doing so or anything, just not something for me either.

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 19:24

I was referring to your comments on another post a while back where you said you preferred Lenin's version of revolutionary defeatism to Malatesta's, and you described his policy as the proletariat defeating its own bourgeoisie, in contrast to Malatesta saying it would have been good for the Brits to lose to the Boers. Your comment indicates that you subscribe to something more in line with Trotsky's politics than Lenin's, as do the other groups I mentioned (not that you need be a member of those groups to share a particular political point with them). Not sure why you feel the need to play stupid and hope people don't remember your previous comments.

Tim Declercq@ (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 20:07

If I wanted to play stupid and hope people don't remember by previous comments I would be posting as anon. The only reason there is on this website to be posting under a specific username is exactly so that discussions and positions can be carried over across multiple comment threads instead of each comment being its own isolated point.

As for what you're bringing up, I vaguely remember having had a discussion on this with Wayne at one point but can't exactly remember the precise details, maybe you can provide a link? Because as far as I recall that discussion was regarding the "revolutionary" part of "revolutionary defeatism" and not the "defeatism" part, I don't think I've ever denied that Lenin's position was that it was the military defeat of the Russian Empire that would create the conditions for the revolutionary overthrow of Czarism. I'm pretty sure the discussion wasn't so much a Malatesta vs Lenin one but about Wayne's use of Malatesta to push his own position which lacks any sort of revolutionary component at all. Either way, without a link to the comment you're referring to I can't really say too much about that as I simply don't recall the precise details enough.

Tim Declercq@ (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 06:08

What is lame is arguing about some offhand comment someone made whenever without providing a link or a quote so the person can actually tell what it is you're talking about, expecting people to just perfectly recall every single offhand comment they've ever made.

Tim Declercq@ (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 15:12

Though judging by your points here, perhaps the Greek Anti-NATO Drasi is something more to your liking? They have this thing called the Coordination for the Defeat of NATO or something like that which, as I understand it, argues for the military defeat of NATO by the Russian military. They're supported by some people from the Elektra political space who used to also participate in the Steki Distomo. They got a facebook account here: https://www.facebook.com/antinato.drasi Don't know all that much more about them though.

anonymous (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 07:06

Not the other commenter and maybe I'm being trolled, but using Fedbook especially for anything politically-charged -or personally relational- is just plain stupid and self-defeating. Why aren't they on Kolektiva or some Pleroma instance?

Tim Declercq Wed, 02/12/2025 - 10:34

For all I know they are on Kolektiva or what-have-you-not. All I'm saying is that this is how I personally know of them, through some old comrades from Steki Distomo who I've kept in touch with on Facebook who are now supporting this and/or involved with it.

As for your claims about using Facebook, almost every anarchist collective in Greece I know - and almost every individual anarchist I know there - has a Facebook account. And yes, some of them get dragged to court for saying things on Facebook (Giorgos from Rouvikonas is a prime example, he's had like 10 court cases already for things he said on Facebook), do you really expect that a little bit of repression is going to make people shiver in fear and run away from contact with the masses to some anarchist echo-chamber?

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 02/13/2025 - 07:19

Revolutionary defeatism is even a stupider paradigm than "no war but class war". If Russia would be defeated by NATO (likely not going to ever happen now that they got allies in charge in D.C., but anyways) that'd mean the takeover of what's left of it by Western forces and especially their interests. Just like Lenin was a collaborator with Germany and aided by them. The only thing that kept Germany to take over Russia after the monarchy's collapse was due to the obvious fact Germany had lost the war and had to deal with the rough conditions of the Versailles Treaty already. If the German Empire would have won the war, all Lenin would have been is a real estate agent for a massive German land-grab.

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 02/13/2025 - 09:18

Part of Lenin's argument for revolutionary defeatism was that from the perspective of, for example, Ukraine (Little Russia), and other territories occupied by Russia, the defeat of Russia would be to their benefit. Ukrainians could not hope for the empire that was oppressing them to win because this would mean further oppression by the occupiers! Military "defeat" also did not mean that the victors would occupy all of the territory of the vanquished. Russia was defeated more than once by Japan during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 but this did not lead to Japan occupying all of Russia, rather it led to revolutionary uprisings and mutinies in Russia (and Ukraine). Once the Russian revolutions of 1917 took place, revolutionary defeatism no longer applied within Russia because the empire was smashed (from Lenin's perspective at least.) Revolutionary defeatism starts from the premise of colonizing and colonized countries. It does not apply to colonized peoples/countries. This is what many leftcoms and some "anarchists" are too stupid to realize.

This is to say nothing of the somewhat different perspective of anarchists like Malatesta who said it would be better for the Brits to lose to the Boers because the Brits were big time world colonizers, or that anarchists couldn't take side with colonizers like the Brits against the Germans in WW1.

Again, before you comment on how stupid you think revolutionary defeatism is, try learning the slightest thing about it. Otherwise you end looking as stupid as Anarchist Communist Group and Organise magazine in the UK did, arguing against each other while taking the opposite positions they claim (ACG = Trotsky, Organise = Lenin).

Tim Declercq Thu, 02/13/2025 - 09:48

That is one hell of a butchering of Lenin. Lenin's argument for revolutionary defeatism was based on the fact that the defeat of one's own bourgeoisie on the battlefield would create the conditions for its revolutionary overthrow by one's own proletariat. If what you say is true, and Lenin's revolutionary defeatism was simply based on such military defeat being to the benefit of local national-bourgeois forces in Ukraine and elsewhere, then his position wouldn't have been with the Russian proletariat but with the German Kaiser, his allies would've been the German social-chauvinists and Ukrainian nationalists. And the reason revolutionary defeatism didn't apply after the Russian revolution of 1917 isn't because from Lenin's perspective "the empire was smashed" but that from his perspective a dictatorship of the proletariat had been installed, so there was no more bourgeois rule to overthrow, and no more gain to be had from military defeat of one's own forces. The slogan was "turn the imperialist war into a civil war" and not "turn the imperialist war into a national-liberation war" after all.

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 02/13/2025 - 10:03

First try learning what the words "part of" mean in the context of a sentence, paragraph and argument before you make a moronic response. Nowhere did I say that Lenin's revolutionary defeatism did not include "revolutionary overthrow by one's own proletariat", I simply indicated that it also includes the division of the world into colonizer and colonized countries.

Your argument about Germany being Lenin's ally given the analysis is exactly what Trostky argued against Lenin's revolutionary defeatism and what Lenin responded to Trotsky about in his article 'The Defeat of One’s Own Government in the Imperialist War'.

Trotsky: "an uncalled-for and absolutely unjustifiable concession to the political methodology of social-patriotism, which would replace the revolutionary struggle against the war and the conditions causing it, with an orientation—highly arbitrary in the present conditions—towards the lesser evil.”

Lenin: "in *all* imperialist countries the proletariat must now desire the defeat of its own government," meaning in Germany oppose Germany, in Russia oppose Russia!

I recommend reading the article in question as well as the following article (particularly condition 8) before you further make a fool of yourself in front of the reputable anews peanut gallery of trolls and zionists.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/x01.htm

Tim Declercq Thu, 02/13/2025 - 10:44

Thank you, I was already familiar with both articles. Neither of them support what you claim, that Lenin's position of revolutionary defeatism was in part based on Russia's military defeat being favourable to local bourgeois-nationalist forces in Ukraine. Indeed, the Bolsheviks literally fought the Petliurists and other Ukrainian-nationalist forces during the civil war. Now maybe you could get to actually supporting your claim instead of nonsense about how my argument against your position is supposedly the same as Trotsky's argument against Lenin. Show us where Lenin said that the position of revolutionary defeatism in WW1 was based, even in part, on defeat being favourable for local nationalist forces in Ukraine and other parts of the Russian empire.

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 02/13/2025 - 13:13

I never wrote that "Lenin's position of revolutionary defeatism was in part based on Russia's military defeat being favourable to local bourgeois-nationalist forces in Ukraine."

I wrote that "from the perspective of, for example, Ukraine (Little Russia), and other territories occupied by Russia, the defeat of Russia would be to their benefit."

Now this might be too subtle for your minuscule intellect but these two sentences don't refer to the same thing. Little Russia and its people (during WW1) are not equivalent to "bourgeois-nationalist forces in Ukraine."

However, in the context of WW1 and the debate on revolutionary defeatism, Lenin did write, "For example, if tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be 'just,' 'defensive' wars, irrespective of who attacked first; and every Socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slaveowning, predatory “great” powers."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/s-w/ch01.htm

And, "The defeat of the government’s army weakens the government, promotes the liberation of the nationalities it oppresses, and facilitates civil war against the ruling classes."

https://www.international-communist-party.org/BasicTexts/English/15Leni…

There is no question that one part among Lenin's multi-part revolutionary defeatism policy was the liberation of colonies. Your brain is simply too deep-fried in trot/leftcom grease to even read my argument properly let alone correctly understand Lenin's actual politics.

Not to mention the fact that you're proudly ignorant of the historical anarchist position on colonialism, inter-imperialist war and militarism, which wasn't against national liberation of colonies either, just the opposite. Anarchists (other than Kropotkin and pals once WW1 came along) were even *more* into national liberation than marxists were, and this did not contradict their anti-militarism, the more pro-national-liberation certain anarchists were the more anti-militarist they were, whereas Kropotkin became pro-militarist and worried about Germany getting France's colonies, not the colonies getting free from France, which is what the anti-militarist anarchists were talking about.

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 02/13/2025 - 13:50

So anarchists must join the natinal army and defend the state because Kropotkin said something about the war more than 100 years ago. But fighting one's own government is wrong because Lenin and Trotsky said something more than 100 years ago. Hmmm, interesting.

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 02/13/2025 - 14:14

No, the opposite. Kropotkin wanted anarchists to join the French national army and defend the state, while Malatesta and others were against this (in part because they supported the liberation of France's colonies). Lenin said it's right to fight your own imperialist government, and for colonized countries to fight against colonizer states (like Russia), while Trotsky said that Russians wanting and fighting for Russia's defeat were supporting the German state as the lesser evil (Lenin disagreed, he said the proles should fight against their own governments in *every* imperialist state).

Tim Declercq Thu, 02/13/2025 - 14:58

"I wrote that "from the perspective of, for example, Ukraine (Little Russia), and other territories occupied by Russia, the defeat of Russia would be to their benefit.""

And continued further with "Ukrainians could not hope for the empire that was oppressing them to win because this would mean further oppression by the occupiers!"

In both cases you are talking about the interests of "Ukraine" and of "Ukrainians", not of the *proletariat* in the Ukrainian region, but of a nationally defined interest of "Ukraine" itself. You say this isn't equivalent to the interests of the local bourgeois-nationalist forces in Ukraine but you do not state to what this supposed national interest would concretely correspond then.

So perhaps your grand intellect, burdened with walking the Earth amongst us minuscule intellects, can explain why the Bolsheviks in the Ukrainian region during WW1 did *not* take the position of "turn the imperialist war into a national-liberation war" and opposed the Ukrainian nationalists? Why did the Ukrainian Bolsheviks not jump onto the chance for participation in the All-Ukrainian National Congress that had as its goal this "national liberation of Ukraine" but instead denounced it as bourgeois-nationalist instead?

And no, comments about Morocco waging an anti-colonial war against France or anti-colonialism as an entry condition for the Communist International are not in support of your claim, your claim was *specifically* about national liberation for Ukraine during WW1.

Tim Declercq Thu, 02/13/2025 - 15:30

Basically, what you are doing here is taking generic comments on anti-colonialism by Lenin which *you yourself* then apply to the situation in the Ukrainian region during WW1, claiming this to be Lenin's position, even though Lenin himself never made that argument and the actions of the Bolsheviks in the Ukrainian region during that time were directly opposed to this.

As for the claim that my argument against this position is the same as Trotsky's argument against Lenin. No, Trotsky's argument was that fighting for the defeat of Russia *on the grounds of desiring proletarian revolution* was equivalent to fighting for the interests of the German Kaiser. My argument is that fighting for the defeat of Russia *on the grounds of desiring the "national liberation of Ukraine"* is equivalent to fighting for the interests of the German Kaiser. An argument that is quite supported by what actually ended up happening, where the faltering Ukrainian nationalists were supported by the German Kaiserreich during the civil war.

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 02/13/2025 - 16:48

Wow, you almost figured out what the phrase "for example" means, quite a mental feat for a type such as yourself.

Lenin didn't write "promotes the liberation of the nationalities it oppresses [except Ukraine!]," and these were not "generic comments on anti-colonialism" by Lenin from random texts on colonialism, these are from texts he specifically wrote having to do with revolutionary defeatism. You were either too stupid to check this or are simply lying, extremely pathetic either way.

Lenin wrote of "Morocco", "India", "Persia" and "China", not of the *proletariat* in the those regions, but of a nationally defined interest of those regions themselves. Your issue is that you disagree with Lenin on revolutionary defeatism and how it relates to colonialism, but you whine as if I am the one who invented Lenin's policy. You can be against the liberation of colonies without appropriating Lenin to do so. Plenty of fucked up people out there who are against the liberation of colonies, you have lots of reactionary company.

Why did the Bolsheviks (like the anarchists) oppose specific Ukrainian nationalist groups? Because specific nationalist groups are not equivalent to the oppressed country. Lenin didn't say socialists should support national liberation for "Morocco", "India", "Persia" and "China" only if every nationalist group is super cool but should support colonialism if there aren't any cool groups there. Just like the IWW didn't say we should oppose working class struggle because the AFL is chauvinist.

When you write "And no, comments about Morocco waging an anti-colonial war against France or anti-colonialism as an entry condition for the Communist International are not in support of your claim, your claim was *specifically* about national liberation for Ukraine during WW1," you have clearly confused different texts by Lenin, one during WW1 (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/s-w/ch01.htm), with more direct reference to revolutionary defeatism, and one after WW1 (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/x01.htm), but which is still relevant to the question of revolutionary defeatism. You mental powers seem to be flagging again after a brief moment of clarity.

It may well be that your "argument is that fighting for the defeat of Russia *on the grounds of desiring the "national liberation of Ukraine"* is equivalent to fighting for the interests of the German Kaiser," and that this has an incredibly nuanced distinction between Trotsky's position against revolutionary defeatism and your position against revolutionary defeatism. The fact would remain that you are resolutely opposed to Lenin's revolutionary defeatism because you are a dogmatic and chauvinist fool when it comes to colonialism. Aren't you Belgian or something? Quelle surprise! Lenin's argument for revolutionary defeatism was not based on the national liberation of Ukraine alone, you absolute dingbat.

"We do not advocate preserving small nations at all costs; other conditions being equal, we are decidedly for centralisation and are opposed to the petty-bourgeois ideal of federal relationships. Even if our assumption were true, however, it is, firstly, not our business, or that of democrats (let alone of socialists), to help Romanov-Bobrinsky-Purishkevich throttle the Ukraine, etc."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/dec/12a.htm

"From the standpoint of bourgeois justice and national freedom (or the right of nations to existence), Germany would be absolutely right as against England and France, for she has been 'done out' of colonies, her enemies are oppressing an immeasurably far larger number of nations than she is, and the Slavs who are oppressed by her ally Austria undoubtedly enjoy far more freedom than those in tsarist Russia, that real 'prison of nations.' But Germany is fighting not for the liberation, but for the oppression of nations. It is not the business of Socialists to help the younger and stronger robber (Germany) to rob the older and overgorged robbers. Socialists must take advantage of the struggle between the robbers to overthrow them all."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/s-w/ch01.htm

“Together we will drive out from Ukraine the Austro-German counter-revolutionary armies and overthrow the power of the hetman Skoropadsky. We will not let any other power take its place.”

https://fr.anarchistlibraries.net/library/nestor-makhno-memoires-et-ecr…

Tim Declercq Thu, 02/13/2025 - 17:51

"You can be against the liberation of colonies without appropriating Lenin to do so. Plenty of fucked up people out there who are against the liberation of colonies, you have lots of reactionary company."

I am not against the liberation of colonies you dimwitted demagogue.

"Why did the Bolsheviks (like the anarchists) oppose specific Ukrainian nationalist groups? Because specific nationalist groups are not equivalent to the oppressed country. Lenin didn't say socialists should support national liberation for "Morocco", "India", "Persia" and "China" only if every nationalist group is super cool but should support colonialism if there aren't any cool groups there."

Provide the name of *any* Ukrainian nationalist group, fighting for the "national liberation of Ukraine" outside of proletarian revolution that was supported by either the Bolsheviks or the anarchists. If you can't find even a single one, then maybe it's because a non-revolutionary "national liberation of Ukraine" was not in fact what was meant by revolutionary defeatism, no? Heck, the fact that the word "revolutionary" makes up the entire half of the phrase "revolutionary defeatism" should be a big hint there already, but let's not demand too much from a person of your intellectual status.

"you have clearly confused different texts by Lenin, one during WW1 (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/s-w/ch01.htm), with more direct reference to revolutionary defeatism, and one after WW1 (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/x01.htm), but which is still relevant to the question of revolutionary defeatism. You mental powers seem to be flagging again after a brief moment of clarity."

You claim the text on the entry conditions of the Communist International and other comments on anti-colonial wars are part of Lenin's theory of revolutionary defeatism, yet Lenin himself clearly states in a text you yourself have cited: "Anyone who would in all earnest refute the “slogan” of defeat for one’s own government in the imperialist war should prove one of three things: (1) that the war of 1914-15 is not reactionary" https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/jul/26.htm

That is, revolutionary defeatism for Lenin did not apply to wars which, in his view, were progressive, such as anti-colonial wars. Do you even read the texts you cite or are you just hoping others won't? The defeatism Lenin desired on the colonial powers in anti-colonial wars had nothing to do with revolutionary defeatism, it had nothing to do with defeat creating the conditions for the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie by its own proletariat. Indeed, as you yourself have cited Lenin saying, revolutionary defeatism is symmetric - in Russia desire the defeat of the Russian government, in Germany desire the defeat of the German government.

" "it is, firstly, not our business, or that of democrats (let alone of socialists), to help Romanov-Bobrinsky-Purishkevich throttle the Ukraine" "

Yes of course, because the only option apart from helping Great Russian chauvinism in Ukraine must be to support the "national liberation of Ukraine." Nothing about proletarian revolution to see here people, move along, just some good old national liberation. Again you are taking something Lenin said and pushing your own conclusion on it even though that isn't what's expressed, this time because your feeble mind can not conceive of options other than either supporting Great Russian chauvinism or supporting non-revolutionary national liberation.

And I see you're now trying to enlist Makhno in your fight for the "national liberation of Ukraine." Quelle surprise! Yes, Makhno, the great proponent of non-revolutionary national liberation! Wayne, is that you?

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 02/13/2025 - 19:58

Oh, thank goodness, you're "not against the liberation of colonies" you're just against the liberation of any colonized peoples because every Ukrainian nationalist group in history has been naughty. Why stop there though? I for one believe we should oppose the liberation of all groups: women, oppressed races, etc., because one particular union bureaucrat I know was a jerk a few times. I am a very intelligent internationalist! I'm against struggle of any kind because capitalism still exists.

Tim Declercq Thu, 02/13/2025 - 20:21

This discussion isn't about my position but about Lenin's position. Can't you tell? Oh right, I get it, because I've been arguing about what Lenin's position is therefor I must agree with that position, because it's impossible to argue about a proposition without accepting it. Please refer to my earlier comment about the problem with stupid people.

Tim Declercq Thu, 02/13/2025 - 20:17

Here, let's see what Lenin himself had to say about your various arguments...

From Lenin's speech 'On the National Question' on 29 April 1917 at the 7th All-Russia Conference of the RSDLP(B):

"The Polish Social-Democratic comrades have rendered a great historic service by advancing the slogan of internationalism and declaring that the fraternal union of the proletariat of all countries is of supreme importance to them and that they will never go to war for the liberation of Poland. This is to their credit, and this is why we have always regarded only these Polish Social-Democrats as socialists. The others are patriots, Polish Plekhanovs. But this peculiar position, when, in order to safeguard socialism, people were forced to struggle against a rabid and morbid nationalism, has produced a strange state of affairs: comrades come to us saying that we must give up the idea of Poland’s freedom, her right to secession.

Why should we Great Russians, who have been oppressing more nations than any other people, deny the right to secession for Poland, Ukraine, or Finland? We are asked to become chauvinists, because by doing so we would make the position of Social-Democrats in Poland less difficult. We do not pretend to seek to liberate Poland, because the Polish people live between two states that are capable of fighting. Instead of telling the Polish workers that only those Social-Democrats are real democrats who maintain that the Polish people ought to be free, since there is no place for chauvinists in a socialist party, the Polish Social-Democrats argue that, just because they find the union with Russian workers advantageous, they are opposed to Poland’s secession. They have a perfect right to do so. But people don’t want to understand that to strengthen internationalism you do not have to repeat the same words. What you have to do is to stress, in Russia, the freedom of secession for oppressed nations and, in Poland, their freedom to unite. Freedom to unite implies freedom to secede. We Russians must emphasise freedom to secede, while the Poles must emphasise freedom to unite."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/7thconf/29d.htm

That is, Lenin himself wasn't so intellectually limited as you so as to think that refusing to support Great Russian chauvinism automatically means supporting a struggle for the "national liberation of Poland." The speech continues:

"We stand for the settlement of problems which the bourgeois revolution has left unsolved. Our attitude to the separatist movement is indifferent, neutral. If Finland, Poland or Ukraine secede from Russia, there is nothing bad in that. What is wrong with it? Anyone who says that is a chauvinist. One must be mad to continue Tsar Nicholas’s policy."

Here stating in even clearer terms that being against the

And from the Resolution on the National Question adopted at the same conference:

"The right of nations freely to secede must not be confused with the advisability of secession by a given nation at a given moment. The party of the proletariat must decide the latter question quite independently in each particular case, having regard to the interests of social development as a whole and the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat for socialism."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/7thconf/29e.htm

Stating in no unclear terms that the position of the Bolsheviks regarding the advisability of secession of any given nation at any given point in time must be decided independently in each particular case. That is, just because Lenin at one point remarked that for example an anti-colonial war of national liberation by Morocco against France would be progressive doesn't mean that he was in favour of the "national liberation of Ukraine" as the meaning of revolutionary defeatism during WW1. You can't just transfer a generic comment about anti-colonialism to the specific case of Ukraine in WW1 and pretend that is the position of Lenin on the latter, as I already explained to you before.

You are just a nationalist trying to enlist communists and anarchists in some "struggle for the national liberation of Ukraine" using quotes from Lenin and Makhno to pretend as if they were in favour of Ukrainian nationalism, name-calling and insulting the intellect of your opponents when they point out that those quotes don't actually state any such support but that it's just you yourself who is pushing your own conclusions and interpretations on them.

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 02/14/2025 - 08:37

Again you are lying, the quote about Morocco, India, Persia and China (not just Morocco, as you keep pretending) is from the text 'Socialism and War: The Attitude of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party Towards the War', chapter 1: 'The Principles of Socialism and the War of 1914–1915'. It is not some random text on colonialism, it is a text about what the title says it's about. In this same first chapter there is a section titled 'Concerning Defeat of "One’s Own” Government in the Imperialist War'. The text is one of the main texts written during the war in which Lenin outlines how he defines his revolutionary defeatism. He had likely borrowed the concepts of 'The Right of Nations to Self-Determination' and turning inter-state war into civil war from the decades earlier writings of Bakunin: Revolutionary Catechism (1866), Letters to a Frenchman on the Present Crisis (1870) and Statism and Anarchy (1873).

I never argued that Lenin called for supporting every national liberation organization or action/strategy at every single moment in time. He supported the "right of nations freely to secede" as well as the right to join (which is only consistent), and unlike anarchists, he supported an authoritarian form of centralism as opposed to federalism, as I myself quoted him saying in another text. I am not and never have been a Leninist, yet its clear as day that an analysis (however superficial) of colonialism was absolutely included in his definition of revolutionary defeatism, and this will never change no matter how hard you cry about it and how many quotes you pull from him that confirm my interpretation and refute your own.

Again,

"The defeat of the government’s army weakens the government, promotes the liberation of the nationalities it oppresses, and facilitates civil war against the ruling classes."
Resolutions on the Imperialist War, Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, The Conference of the Group abroad, February 27 - March 4, 1915, Berne

https://www.international-communist-party.org/BasicTexts/English/15Leni…

"To help people that are unable to think for themselves, the Berne resolution (Sotsial Demokrat No. 40) made it clear, that in all imperialist countries the proletariat must now desire the defeat of its own government."
V. I. Lenin, The Defeat of One’s Own Government in the Imperialist War, Sotsial-Demorkrat No. 43, July 26, 1915

And to further help people like you that are unable to think for themselves, let me remind you, to support class struggle does not mean to support the American Federation of Labor either, to support women's liberation does not mean to support every single organization that calls itself feminist and every single action they take. To really support struggles requires thinking and not just blindly categorizing the liberation of any colonized peoples as evil because Ukrainian nationalist groups are.

To support the right to self-determination of nations but not support those nations actually deciding to act on that right (including to join rather than sever) is exactly the chauvinism and "phrase-bandying" that Lenin accused Trotsky of committing in his anti-revolutionary-defeatism.

However, you are far too stupid to even understand Lenin's words on the self-determination of nations when you read them, or to properly reference which quotes come from which sources, or whether the source text in question was about revolutionary defeatism or not, so my expectations for you are about as low as can be. You are a prime example of how a person can read much and understand little to nothing (if you even actually read).

Tim Declercq Sat, 02/15/2025 - 04:36

Look, you can imagine that you're determining Lenin's views on the Ukraine and the other oppressed nationalities in the Russian Empire by reading between the lines of his other texts as much as you want, I have already quoted you multiple texts where Lenin directly and explicitly gives his position on this. And that position is not one of *supporting* the "national liberation" of these territories, it is one of *indifference* to this question. Just because Lenin is against the Czarist policy of oppression of these nationalities and is against the denial of their right to secede doesn't mean that he *supports* their secession. I have already quoted Lenin's works directly and explicitly stating this as far as Finland and Poland are concerned, so here's for the Ukraine:

"In the first place, the interests of labour demand the fullest confidence and the closest alliance among the working people of different countries and nations. The supporters of the landowners and capitalists, of the bourgeoisie, strive to disunite the workers, to intensify national discord and enmity, in order to weaken the workers and strengthen the power of capital.

Capital is an international force. To vanquish it, an international workers’ alliance, an international workers’ brotherhood, is needed.

We are opposed to national enmity and discord, to national exclusiveness. We are internationalists. We stand for the close union and the complete amalgamation of the workers and peasants of all nations in a single world Soviet republic.

{...}

We must, therefore, strive persistently for the unity of nations and ruthlessly suppress everything that tends to divide them, and in doing so we must be very cautious and patient, and make concessions to the survivals of national distrust. We must be adamant and uncompromising towards everything that affects the fundamental interests of labour in its fight for emancipation from the yoke of capital. The question of the demarcation of frontiers now, for the time being—for we are striving towards the complete abolition of frontiers—is a minor one, it is not fundamental or important.

{...}

One of the things distinguishing the Borotbists from the Bolsheviks is that they insist upon the unconditional independence of the Ukraine. The Bolsheviks will not make this a subject of difference and disunity, they do not regard this as an obstacle to concerted proletarian effort. There must be unity in the struggle against the yoke of capital and for the dictatorship of the proletariat, and there should be no parting of the ways among Communists on the question of national frontiers, or whether there should be a federal or some other tie between the states."
V.I. Lenin, Letter to the Workers and Peasants of the Ukraine, 28 december 1919

What you're doing is exactly the same as what Ukrainian nationalists do with Makhno: "He fought against the Reds therefor he must be a fighter for the national liberation of Ukraine." Only you're doing it with Lenin: "He was against the denial of the right of nations to secede, therefor he must be a fighter for the national liberation of Ukraine." No, Lenin's position was for the revolutionary overthrow of bourgeois rule by the proletariat, and one of *indifference* to the "national liberation of Ukraine" - neither fight against it nor fight for it.

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 02/15/2025 - 08:20

I see you still have reading comprehension issues, as you conveniently forgot the part of the Makhno quote I used where he says, "We will not let any other power take its place.” Makhno had nothing in common with present-day scumbag militarists and nationalists like the Resistance Committee and Solidarity Collectives.

I could have added a quote from Shubin (2011), “Маkhno gathered the peasants of the region at a Regional Congress of Soviets, which passed a resolution declaring ‘Death to the Central Rada’. The Ukrainian nationalists were silenced for a time.”

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/steven-j-hirsch-lucien-van-der-…

And I could have added a quote from the Draft Declaration of the (Makhnovist) revolutionary insurgent army of Ukraine adopted on October 20, 1919 at a session of the Military Revolutionary Soviet, which states, “Clearly, each national group has a natural and indisputable entitlement to speak its language freely, live in accordance with its customs, retain its beliefs and rituals, draw up its school books and have its own managerial establishments and agencies: in short, to maintain and develop its national culture in every sphere.”

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexandre-skirda-nestor-makhno-…

Your problem, in sharp contrast to Makhno and most historical anarchists, is that for you national liberation (freedom) equals nationalism (supremacy), the nation equals the state (making the form 'nation-state' completely redundant and indicating you have no idea what the history of the State as a form is).

When Louise Michel supported the national liberation struggle of the Kanaks, she could not possibly have been supporting a struggle for a new nation-state, because the Kanaks did not have a state they were fighting to liberate or create. It is only in modern times that some Kanaks talk about the necessity of an independent state, a foreign form which they would, in some persons eyes, *need* to adopt in order to survive within the world system. Nation does not equal state. Bakunin and even Rocker understood this. It does not matter what words we use. We can replace "nation" with "people" if we want to exclusively use the term nation for the modern form within a state. Changing words does not change the things they refer to.

Lenin in 1914 called the Russian Empire the “prison of the peoples.”

You take a quote from 1919 about the USSR and pretend the context is exactly the same. Russian Empire equals USSR. Brilliant!

Lenin writes in 1915, in the context of the Russian Empire and inter-imperialist war, "The defeat of the government’s army weakens the government, promotes the liberation of the nationalities it oppresses, and facilitates civil war against the ruling classes."

You interpret this to mean that Lenin was "neutral" or "indifferent" toward the liberation of nationalities oppressed by imperialist governments. You are a patent fool beyond help.

Lenin writes later in 1915, "For example, if tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be 'just,' 'defensive' wars, irrespective of who attacked first; and every Socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slaveowning, predatory 'great' powers."

You interpret this to mean that Lenin is "neutral" or "indifferent" about these wars and about colonialism, with regard to revolutionary defeatism, because he also believed "The right of nations freely to secede must not be confused with the advisability of secession by a given nation at a given moment." Again, you are a moron of the highest caliber.

You leave out the part where he said in the same text, "our Finnish comrades come here and say, 'We want autonomy.' But what they get is a broadside, and the answer: 'Wait for the Constituent Assembly.' But we say: 'Any Russian socialist who denies Finland freedom is a chauvinist.'"

Again, you don't need to appropriate either Lenin or anarchism to oppose national liberation on principle. There are many other right-wing and chauvinistic people who share your backwards views. Even Bakunin was racist toward Inuit people despite supporting national self-determination on principle. Kropotkin didn't give a shit about Belgian colonialism in the Congo. Whereas anti-militarist anarchists specifically brought up this point against him in WW1. You appear to be even more full of shit than Kropotkin, which is quite a feat, I'll admit.

Tim Declercq Sat, 02/15/2025 - 22:40

I see you still have nothing but slander, nonsense, and insults. Nothing unexpected from a petty-bourgeois nationalist huckster like yourself.

"You take a quote from 1919 about the USSR and pretend the context is exactly the same. Russian Empire equals USSR. Brilliant!"

Quite hilarious coming from someone who tried to pass off a 1920 quote on the entry conditions of the Comintern as being about the "national liberation of Ukraine" during WW1. Also, the quote isn't about the USSR you total moron, the USSR didn't even exist until 1922. You are a total joke.

"You interpret this to mean that Lenin is "neutral" or "indifferent" about these wars and about colonialism, with regard to revolutionary defeatism, because he also believed "The right of nations freely to secede must not be confused with the advisability of secession by a given nation at a given moment." Again, you are a moron of the highest caliber.

You leave out the part where he said in the same text, "our Finnish comrades come here and say, 'We want autonomy.' But what they get is a broadside, and the answer: 'Wait for the Constituent Assembly.' But we say: 'Any Russian socialist who denies Finland freedom is a chauvinist.'""

Again your puny mind can not comprehend that considering the denial of Finland's secession chauvinist does not mean not considering fighting for Finland's secession nationalist. In the very same text he literally states: "Our attitude to the separatist movement is indifferent, neutral." How much more explicit can it get? The reason your puny mind can not comprehend this is because Lenin (and Makhno for that matter) were revolutionaries instead of petty-bourgeois nationalists like yourself.

"Again, you don't need to appropriate either Lenin or anarchism to oppose national liberation on principle. There are many other right-wing and chauvinistic people who share your backwards views. Even Bakunin was racist toward Inuit people despite supporting national self-determination on principle. Kropotkin didn't give a shit about Belgian colonialism in the Congo. Whereas anti-militarist anarchists specifically brought up this point against him in WW1. You appear to be even more full of shit than Kropotkin, which is quite a feat, I'll admit."

Just more typical slander as can be expected from characters of your calibre.

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 02/16/2025 - 08:05

Speaking of "slander, nonsense, and insults", which country am I supposed to be a "nationalist" for? I feel like I'll be waiting forever for an answer since you're completely full of shit (and engage in the exact slander you claim to be against) just like the chauvinist Kropotkin. According to your logic Makhno was a nationalist because I quoted him opposing nationalism (but not national self-determination) and everything I said was "nothing but slander, nonsense...", so the opposite of what I said must be the real truth. You're too stupid to even follow your own logic now, let alone anyone else's. Pathetic.

I'm sure the liberation of the Congo from Belgium is nothing but non-sense to you, given where you're from and how you think, but just because you think your people are superior to another doesn't mean other people think they're inferior to you. As many a colonizer throughout history has found out the hard way, like Captain Cook, for instance.

(As an aside, I'm also sure nobody had ever yet even thought of the idea of a USSR in 1919, dimwit. Here I am imagining a guy so incredibly stupid he thinks Lenin thought the RSFSR was equivalent to the Tsarist Empire, but wait, this idiot colonizer really exists already and he's posting on Anews with reckless abandon! Oh joy! Someone hurry up and delete all mention of the Ukrainian People's Republic of Soviets and the Ukrainian Soviet Republic from the history books because they existed before 1919 and Tim Leopold might cry. I for one never claimed that "a 1920 quote on the entry conditions of the Comintern [was] about the 'national liberation of Ukraine' during WW1", but keep lying, I'm sure someone is impressed! Imagine not knowing the difference between supporting worker's struggle and supporting the AFL. You'd really be able to make a lot of progress with such a blockheaded view of the world.)

Tim Declercq Sun, 02/16/2025 - 10:01

1) You know full well that we've not been discussing *my* position but *Lenin's* position on Ukraine/Poland/Finland and the other oppressed nationalities in the Russian Empire in WW1. All your statements like "you think your people are superior to another", "your backwards views", etc are hence nothing but random slanders you're pulling out of your backside. You don't have the first clue about what my position is, because it never even came up in the slightest in this whole discussion, but you won't let that stop you from slandering of course - even after I have explicitly told you this is not my position.

Though I suppose you're at least consistent in imagining you can determine someone's position on a subject by reading between the lines of their statements on other subjects even if your determination is directly contradicted by their explicit statements on the subject.

2) You keep bringing up that example of "supporting the workers' struggle without supporting the AFL" as if the reason Lenin's position wasn't in support of the independence movements in Ukraine, Finland, and Poland is simply because of there being some specific pro-independence groups with which he had a problem. This despite me quoting Lening directly and explicitly saying that the difference between the Borotbists and Ukrainian Bolsheviks was exactly in that the latter did not fight for Ukrainian independence, or that the only Polish socialists he considered genuine socialists were those who did not fight for Polish independence. You keep failing to understand that not fighting *against* the independence of these nations is not the same as fighting *for* their independence.

3) The reason you're a petty-bourgeois nationalist is because none of your arguments for the "national liberation of Ukraine" in WW1 are based on the needs of the class struggle. The class struggle, let alone international proletarian revolution, never even came into any of your arguments. You do not argue for this based on it being a necessary and temporary step to reduce the historical national enmity between the workers of different nations with the goal of international proletarian revolution, which would be Lenin's position, but as something that is distinct from this goal and even as a substitute for it. From the Letter to the Workers and Peasants of the Ukraine cited earlier:

"If a Ukrainian Communist insists upon the unconditional state independence of the Ukraine, he lays himself open to the suspicion that he is supporting this policy not because of the temporary interests of the Ukrainian workers and peasants in their struggle against the yoke of capital, but on account of the petty-bourgeois national prejudices of the small owner. Experience has provided hundreds of instances of the petty-bourgeois "socialists" of various countries—all the various Polish, Latvian and Lithuanian pseudo-socialists, Georgian Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and the like—assuming the guise of supporters of the proletariat for the sole purpose of deceitfully promoting a policy of compromise with “their” national bourgeoisie against the revolutionary workers."

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 02/16/2025 - 11:41

Well, some people can discuss two things at once, Lenin's position and King Leopold the Tim's position. Just because you confuse things with each other doesn't mean someone else has to. Just because you lie about Makhno's position doesn't mean someone else is too stupid to understand it. Just because you lie and slander someone else as a nationalist doesn't mean that person really is a nationalist. Your words aren't really that powerful, sorry to tell you.

Sticking to Lenin's position for now, when it comes to his revolutionary defeatism, there is no contradiction between Lenin's call for class/civil war (borrowed from Bakunin) and his following description: "The present war is, in substance, a struggle between Britain, France and Germany for the partition of colonies and for the plunder of rival countries; on the part of tsarism and the ruling classes of Russia, it is an attempt to seize Persia, Mongolia, Turkey in Asia, Constantinople, Galicia, etc."

In the real world, unlike King Tim's imaginary reconstructed Congo "Free" State, two things can be true at once. Revolutionary defeatism for Lenin can be about the "liberation of the nationalities it [each imperialist government] oppresses" AND facilitating "civil war against the ruling classes." (Resolutions on the Imperialist War, 1915). There is no necessary contradiction in general between class war and national liberation (or national self-determination), just like the existence of bureaucratic class-collaborationist unions does not mean the class struggle must necessarily, always and everywhere take class-collaborationist forms. Just like some proles are racist settlers and some proles are Indigenous.

This is exemplified by born working class, child laborer become union organizer and national liberationist James Connolly when he wrote in 1916, "We are out for Ireland for the Irish. But who are the Irish? Not the rack-renting, slum-owning landlord; not the sweating, profit-grinding capitalist; not the sleek and oily lawyer; not the prostitute pressman – the hired liars of the enemy. Not these are the Irish upon whom the future depends. Not these, but the Irish working class, the only secure foundation upon which a free nation can be reared."

But according to you, Connolly was "petty-bourgeois" because he believed in fighting the class war and the national liberation war at the same time.

Who is more foolish? The fool named Tim or the fool that would follow Tim?

Should the Kanaks at the time Louise Michel was among them have based their struggle against French colonialism on the needs of the "class struggle", the international proletarian revolution? Or was it the racist class struggle Communards (aside from Michel) who were backwards compared to the Kanaks? In reality, the Kanaks WERE fighting a class war against the French ruling class, who the Communards had become collaborationist with. The class war cannot put aside the question of the colonies, because the colonized are proles and are part of the class war.

As the CNT (who according to you would be petty-bourgeois) at one point put it, "Our internationalist thinking, one hundred percent, induces us to pose the problem of the colonies. We must consider the workers of the Riff as sufficiently capable of dealing with their own lives and wealth."

You, King Tim, are not an internationalist, you are just another chauvinist for western european imperialism. You do not consider the proles of the third world as human, let alone as proles. So you cannot see that their national liberation struggle is not just part of the class war but a crucial part of it.

"Any Russian socialist who does not recognise Finland’s and Ukraine’s right to freedom will degenerate into a chauvinist. And no sophisms or references to his 'method' will ever help him to justify himself."

Lenin, Speech on the National Question April 29 (May 12), 1917

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/7thconf/29d.htm

“Every nation, even a very small one, has its own character, its own particular way of life and manner of speaking, feeling, thinking, and behaving. These distinctive features are the essence of nationality, the product of a nation’s entire history and conditions of existence. Every nation, like every individual, is of necessity what it is, and has an unquestionable right to be itself.”

Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy (1873)

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mikhail-bakunin-statism-and-ana…

anonymous (not verified) Mon, 02/17/2025 - 08:15

"From the viewpoint of the working class and the toiling masses of all the peoples of Russia, the defeat of the tsarist monarchy and its army, which oppress Poland, the Ukraine, and many other peoples of Russia, and foment hatred among the peoples so as to increase Great-Russian oppression of the other nationalities, and consolidate the reactionary and barbarous government of the tsar’s monarchy, would be the lesser evil by far."

V. I. Lenin, The Tasks of Revolutionary Social-Democracy in the European War (1914)

"A proletarian cannot deal a class blow at his government or hold out (in fact) a hand to his brother, the proletarian of the 'foreign' country which is at war with 'our side', without committing 'high treason', without contributing to the defeat, to the disintegration of his 'own', imperialist 'Great' Power."

V. I. Lenin, The Defeat of One’s Own Government in the Imperialist War (1915)

Now call me a petty-bourgeois nationalist but this sure don't seem like Lenin is saying that revolutionary defeatism is when Ukraine doesn't secede from the Tsarist Empire. It downright looks the other way around, that he wants the Great or colonial powers to lose their colonies or foreign territories.

"Therefore, they must without fail demand that the Social-Democratic parties of oppressing countries (especially of the so-called 'great' powers) should recognise and champion the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, precisely in the political sense of the term, i.e., the tight to political secession. The Socialist of a ruling or colony-owning nation who fails to champion this right is a chauvinist."

V. I. Lenin, G. Y. Zinoviev, Socialism and War (1915)

Now call me a slacker in the international proletarian revolution but this sure don't seem like Lenin is "neutral" or "indifferent" toward "the right of oppressed nations to self-determination", he downright seems to be encouraging it. Not to mention, "The defeat of the government’s army weakens the government, promotes the liberation of the nationalities it oppresses, and facilitates civil war against the ruling classes," from the Resolutions on the Imperialist War from Berne 1915.

But I'm just a regular person, not an acolyte of the advanced proletarian science of Timology. You must have to go to school to become as brain-garbled as him. Once you study Timology, you see the light, and you understand what Lenin secretly thought for real: promoting the liberation of the nationalities that imperialist government's oppress is actually very bad because the Bolsheviks didn't work with Ukrainian nationalist groups. The logic is airtight, irrefutable. Lenin was neutral on the question, he just said otherwise as part of a masterful gambit that only Tim understands.

Tim Declercq Tue, 02/18/2025 - 02:36

Lenin was for the *right* of nations to secede. That doesn't mean Lenin was for the secession of these nations, he was indifferent and neutral to it. I don't get why this concept is so difficult for you to understand. Perhaps as an analogy, I am for Wayne's *right* to write pro-Ukraine texts on this website but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out of my way to help him write them here.

This is why you consistently see Lenin writing that denying nations the right to independence is chauvinism, while in the same breath writing that the Bolsheviks were indifferent to the independence movements in question. This shouldn't be so goddamn difficult to understand.

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 02/18/2025 - 07:39

"Promotes the liberation of the nationalities it oppresses" is not a neutral or indifferent statement.

"Champion the right of oppressed nations to self-determination" is not a neutral or indifferent statement.

"Disintegration of his 'own', imperialist 'Great' Power" is not a neutral or indifferent statement.

"Would be the lesser evil by far" is not a neutral or indifferent statement.

"Every Socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slaveowning, predatory 'great' powers" is not a neutral or indifferent statement.

Nothing advocating neutrality or indifference is mentioned in these texts on revolutionary defeatism. If it was important to his analysis of what revolutionary defeatism is, why does he completely fail to mention it and instead make non-neutral and non-indifferent statements about it?

This should not be difficult to understand. But when it comes to you Tim, we are not dealing with someone who displays capability of understanding even very basic distinctions.

What you have done is refer to two texts by Lenin that were written, with reference to specific Polish and Ukrainian groups, after the February Revolution, one of them written after the October Revolution and even the end of WW1, and you yourself have pretended that these post-revolutionary (and even post WW1) conditions are exactly equal to the Tsarist Empire (and conditions of inter-imperialist conflict under WW1), and that these particular groups are exactly equal to the liberation of colonies (which Lenin was never neutral on, in general, as his statements on revolutionary defeatism show).

Perhaps you simply disagree with Lenin on revolutionary defeatism because you disagree with him on colonialism. The fact that you disagree with him or at least don't subscribe to his views is nothing special. Malatesta was for the defeat of the Brits by the Boers without being a Leninist (neither Lenin nor anyone else having any theory of revolutionary defeatism at the time). Part of Malatesta's reasoning was that British colonialism was bad and its victory would make it worse, which, incidentally was also part of Lenin's reasoning, although he reached statist conclusions in contrast to Malatesta's.

None of this is particularly difficult to understand. Someone is just "transporting his cargo under
a false flag", as Lenin put it.

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 13:13

But did Bordiga truly understand quantum mechanics? Can you provide a single source of Bordigist multiple world theory that isn't manufactured? Also, did an antifascist touch you on your mein kamppppfff??? Get a new bit, TimCel. Moscow needs you back. Go dark, komrade.

lumpy (not verified) Tue, 02/11/2025 - 19:29

in my small way, i'm an antifascist militant and under no circumstances would this bullshit be anything but a cowardly ambush according to me and my peers. even worse, what tf is it in service of?

completely agree with this person's position about a real anti-state analysis (aka actual anarchism) and my only point here is that there's plenty of antifascists who aren't useful idiots to NATO, just saying

... (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 01:04

Lucky Lukas, you've just got what you deserve!
Shitty putinist!

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 02/13/2025 - 13:38

Well, obviously not.
Where is Lukas defending or worshipping Putin?

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 02/14/2025 - 23:58

Instead of providing any evidence, showing where he's "keeping Putin's line" you just tell me that I don't know how to tead? Very poor argument.
It sounds more like you are one of those people who use the term "Putinist" against anyone who doesn't want to join or financially support the Ukrainian army. )Since when anarchists support state's armies? Or joining them? Or fundraising for them? Please spare me any nonsense about national liberation or or whatever Kropotkin said 100 years ago, plenty of that in this thread.) And because you can see the world only in black and white - it somehow means that they support the Russian army. And that gives you an excuse to not actually read anything, why bother trying to see what argument is? You know better. Pathetic.
You call someone authoritarian but you are happy to spread lies. You are happy to support the most authoritarian institution - army.
I wish you clowns stop calling yourselfs and claiming the word "anarchist". All this drama would never happen and everyone could do their own thing.
You are edgy liberals.

anonymous (not verified) Wed, 02/12/2025 - 13:54

Lukas (the author of the above text) arrived at the keyboard to write this fresh from having punched a teenager, initiating the violence himself. He details doing precisely that in the last statement from him just before this one. He's not a victim, but a jerk who is bringing this upon himself.

The interesting question is why the anews collective is publishing his side of the story but not the perspectives from all the people he has attacked or otherwise provoked conflict with.

Publishing the self-justifying screeds of a lone individual who is descending deeper and deeper into a mental health crisis as he burns his bridges with the rest of our species is not helpful. You might as well platform Kevin Keating.

Tim Declercq Wed, 02/12/2025 - 14:31

"The interesting question is why the anews collective is publishing his side of the story but not the perspectives from all the people he has attacked or otherwise provoked conflict with."

The really interesting question is why you are making these false claims when anyone can easily check that these texts have also been published here: https://anarchistnews.org/content/czechia-we-will-not-be-intimidated

Also, there is a "Submit" button on the top-right, so instead of whining that others are supposedly not publishing what you want you can do it yourself.

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 02/13/2025 - 02:02

I think Lukas is not criticizing the violence, but the context of the violent action. He hit the man with his fist because this man was helping police repressive work and because this man supports the war, which means he is practically aiding the murder machine. But Lukas was attacked because he doesn't want to support the state and the war. That's a big difference in context. Punching someone can be legitimate but it can also be completely unacceptable. It depends on the circumstances and the motivations of the person doing it.

I also find it unacceptable to try to discredit someone by falsely labeling his article as doxxing or mentioning their mental crisis. Perhaps you could ask yourself this question: Could bullying and repeated attacks by aggressors be the cause of a mental health crisis?

I think it can. Read Lukas interesting text on the subject. https://lukasborl.noblogs.org/dilema-se-vraci-silenstvi-nebo-smrt/

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 02/13/2025 - 02:16

You write about ‘burning bridges’. But I see you're trying to discredit, ostracize and isolate Lukas. I see that people in the so-called Czech Republic, the UK, Germany, Russia, Ukraine and other parts of the world are currently expressing solidarity with him. His articles and analysis are being translated into English, German, French, etc. Perhaps this Lukáš is not so lonely and insignificant. That must worry you a lot. You want to see Lukas in a position he's not in. You're trying to put him in that position, but you're not succeeding.

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 02/13/2025 - 04:09

I noticed an interesting phenomenon. Those who are labeled as crazy, insane, mentally unhealthy, those same people often say and do important things. I have also noticed that in this society so-called sane and healthy people say utter nonsense and do disgusting things.

My first question is: Why should I feel sympathy for some people just because someone defines them as normal people with no health problems?

My second question is: Why should I despise someone just because someone defines them as mentally ill?

My third question is: If the main argument in a debate is someone's mental health, then how are we different from regimes that lock up their opposition in mental hospitals?

Add new comment

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

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
W
u
E
1
3
E
N
X
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.