1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
|
<html>
<head>
<title>D.7 Are anarchists opposed to National Liberation struggles?</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>D.7 Are anarchists opposed to National Liberation struggles?</h1>
<p>
Obviously, given the anarchist analysis of imperialism discussed
in <a href="secD5.html">section D.5</a>, anarchists are opposed to imperialism and wars it
inevitably causes. Likewise, as noted in the <a href="secD6.html">last section</a>, we are
against any form of nationalism. Anarchists oppose nationalism just
as much as they oppose imperialism -- neither offer a way to a free
society. While we oppose imperialism and foreign domination and
support decentralisation, it does not mean that anarchists blindly
support national liberation movements. In this section we explain
the anarchist position on such movements.
</p><p>
Anarchists, it should be stressed, are not against globalisation or
international links and ties as such. Far from it, we have always been
internationalists and are in favour of <b><i>"globalisation from below,"</i></b> one
that respects and encourages diversity and difference while sharing
the world. However, we have no desire to live in a world turned bland
by corporate power and economic imperialism. As such, we are opposed
to capitalist trends which commodify culture as it commodifies social
relationships. We want to make the world an interesting place to live
in and that means opposing both actual (i.e. physical, political and
economic) imperialism as well as the cultural and social forms of it.
</p><p>
However, this does not mean that anarchists are indifferent to
the national oppression inherent within imperialism. Far from it.
Being opposed to all forms of hierarchy, anarchists cannot be
in favour of a system in which a country dominates another. The
Cuban anarchists spoke for all of us when they stated that they
were <i>"against all forms of imperialism and colonialism; against
the economic domination of peoples . . . against military pressure
to impose upon peoples political and economic system foreign to
their national cultures, customs and social systems . . . We
believe that among the nations of the world, the small are as
worthy as the big. Just as we remain enemies of national states
because each of them hold its own people in subjection; so also
are we opposed to the super-states that utilise their political,
economic and military power to impose their rapacious systems of
exploitation on weaker countries. As against all forms of
imperialism, we declare for revolutionary internationalism; for
the creation of great confederations of free peoples for their
mutual interests; for solidarity and mutual aid."</i> [quoted by
Sam Dolgoff, <b>The Cuban Revolution: A Critical Perspective</b>,
p. 138]
</p><p>
It is impossible to be free while dependent on the power of another.
If the capital one uses is owned by another country, one is in no
position to resist the demands of that country. If you are dependent
on foreign corporations and international finance to invest in your
nation, then you have to do what they want (and so the ruling class
will suppress political and social opposition to please their backers
as well as maintain themselves in power). To be self-governing under
capitalism, a community or nation must be economically independent.
The centralisation of capital implied by imperialism means that
power rests in the hands of a few others, not with those directly
affected by the decisions made by that power. This power allows
them to define and impose the rules and guidelines of the global
market, forcing the many to follow the laws the few make. Thus
capitalism soon makes a decentralised economy, and so a free
society, impossible. As such, anarchists stress decentralisation
of industry and its integration with agriculture (see
<a href="secI3.html#seci38">section I.3.8</a>)
within the context of socialisation of property and workers'
self-management of production. Only this can ensure that production
meets the needs of all rather than the profits of a few.
</p><p>
Moreover, anarchists also recognise that economic imperialism
is the parent of cultural and social imperialism. As Takis
Fotopoulos argues, <i>"the marketisation of culture and the recent
liberalisation and deregulation of markets have contributed
significantly to the present cultural homogenisation, with
traditional communities and their cultures disappearing all over
the world and people converted to consumers of a mass culture
produced in the advanced capitalist countries and particularly
the USA."</i> [<b>Towards an Inclusive Democracy</b>, p. 40] Equally,
we are aware, to quote Chomsky, that racism <i>"is inherent
in imperial rule"</i> and that it is <i>"inherent in the relation of
domination"</i> that imperialism is based on. [<b>Imperial Ambitions</b>,
p. 48]
</p><p>
It is this context which explains the anarchist position on
national liberation struggles. While we are internationalists,
we are against all forms of domination and oppression -- including
national ones. This means that we are not indifferent to national
liberation struggles. Quite the opposite. In the words of Bakunin:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Fatherland and nationality are, like individuality, each a natural
and social fact, physiological and historical at the same time;
neither of them is a principle. Only that can be called a human
principle which is universal and common to all men; and nationality
separates men . . . What is a principle is the respect which
everyone should have for natural facts, real or social. Nationality,
like individuality, is one of those facts . . . To violate it is to
commit a crime . . . And that is why I feel myself always the patriot
of all oppressed fatherlands."</i> [<b>The Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>,
p. 324]
</blockquote></p><p>
This is because nationality <i>"is a historic, local fact which, like
all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance."</i>
This means that <i>"[e]very people, like every person, is involuntarily
that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. Therein lies
the so-called national rights."</i> Nationality, Bakunin stressed, <i>"is
not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is.
Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be
itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply
the corollary of the general principal of freedom."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b> p. 325]
</p><p>
More recently Murray Bookchin has expressed similar sentiments. <i>"No
left libertarian,"</i> he argued, <i>"can oppose the <b>right</b> of a subjugated
people to establish itself as an autonomous entity -- be it in a
[libertarian] confederation . . . or as a nation-state based in
hierarchical and class inequities."</i> Even so, anarchists do not
elevate the idea of national liberation <i>"into a mindless article
of faith,"</i> as much of the Leninist-influenced left has done. We
do not call for support for the oppressed nation without first
inquiring into <i>"<b>what kind of society</b> a given 'national liberation'
movement would likely produce."</i> To do so, as Bookchin points out,
would be to <i>"support national liberation struggles for instrumental
purposes, merely as a means of 'weakening' imperialism,"</i> which leads
to <i>"a condition of moral bankruptcy"</i> as socialist ideas become
associated with the authoritarian and statist goals of the
"anti-imperialist" dictatorships in "liberated" nations. <i>"But to
oppose an oppressor is not equivalent to calling for <b>support</b> for
everything formerly colonised nation-states do."</i> [<i>"Nationalism and
the 'National Question'"</i>, pp. 8-36, <b>Society and Nature</b>, No. 5,
p. 31, p. 25, p. 29 and p. 31]
</p><p>
This means that anarchists oppose foreign oppression and are usually
sympathetic to attempts by those who suffer it to end it. This does not
mean that we necessarily support national liberation movements as such
(after all, they usually desire to create a new state) but we cannot
sit back and watch one nation oppress another and so act to stop that
oppression (by, for example, protesting against the oppressing nation
and trying to get them to change their policies and withdraw from the
oppressed nations affairs). Nor does it mean we are uncritical of
specific expressions of nationality and popular cultures. Just as we
are against sexist, racist and homophobic individuals and seek to
help them change their attitudes, we are also opposed to such traits
within peoples and cultures and urge those who are subject to such
popular prejudices to change them by their own efforts with the
practical and moral solidarity of others (any attempt to use state
force to end such discrimination rarely works and is often
counter-productive as it entrenches such opinions). Needless
to say, justifying foreign intervention or occupation by appeals to
end such backward cultural traits is usually hypocritical in the
extreme and masks more basic interests. An obvious example is the
Christian and Republican right and its use of the position of women
in Afghanistan to bolster support for the invasion of 2001 (the sight
of the American Taliban discovering the importance of feminism --
in other countries, of course -- was surreal but not unexpected
given the needs of the moment and their basis in <i>"reasons of state"</i>).
</p><p>
The reason for this critical attitude to national liberation struggles
is that they usually counterpoise the common interests of "the nation"
to those of a (foreign) oppressor and assume that <b>class</b> and social
hierarchies (i.e. internal oppression) are irrelevant. Although nationalist
movements often cut across classes, they in practice seek to increase
autonomy for certain parts of society (namely the local elites) while
ignoring that of other parts (namely the working class who are expected
to continue being subject to class and state oppression). For anarchists,
a new national state would not bring any fundamental change in the
lives of most people, who would still be powerless both economically
and socially. Looking around the world at all the many nation-states in
existence, we see the same gross disparities in power, influence and
wealth restricting self-determination for working-class people, even if
they are free "nationally." It seems hypocritical for nationalist leaders
to talk of liberating their own nation from imperialism while advocating
the creation of a capitalist nation-state, which will be oppressive to
its own population (and, perhaps, eventually become imperialistic itself
as it develops to a certain point and has to seek foreign outlets for
its products and capital). The fate of all former colonies provides
ample support for this conclusion.
</p><p>
As Bakunin stressed, nationalists do not understand that <i>"the spontaneous
and free union of the living forces of a nation has nothing in common
with their artificial concentration at once mechanistic and forced in
the political centralisation of the unitary state; and because [they]
confused and identified these two very opposing things [they have]
not only been the promoter of the independence of [their] country
[they have] become at the same time . . . the promoter of its present
slavery."</i> [quoted by Jean Caroline Cahm, <i>"Bakunin"</i>, pp. 22-49,
Eric Cahm and Vladimir Claude Fisera (eds), <b>Socialism and Nationalism</b>,
vol. 1, p. 36]
</p><p>
In response to national liberation struggles, anarchists stress the
self-liberation of the working class, which can be only achieved by its
members' own efforts, creating and using their own organisations. In
this process there can be no separation of political, social and economic
goals. The struggle against imperialism cannot be separated from the
struggle against capitalism. This has been the approach of most, if
not all, anarchist movements in the face of foreign domination --
the combination of the struggle against foreign domination with the
class struggle against native oppressors. In many different countries
(including Bulgaria, Mexico, Cuba and Korea) anarchists have tried, by
their <i>"propaganda, and above all <b>action</b>, [to] encourage the masses to
turn the struggle for political independence into the struggle for the
Social Revolution."</i> [Sam Dolgoff, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 41] In other words,
a people will free only <i>"by the general uprising of the labouring
masses."</i> [Bakunin, quoted by Cahm, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 36]
</p><p>
History has shown the validity of this argument, as well as the fears
of Mexican anarchist Ricardo Flores Magon that it is <i>"the duty of all
the poor to work and to struggle to break the chains that enslave us.
To leave the solution of our problems to the educated and the rich
classes is to voluntarily put ourselves in the grasp of their claws."</i>
For <i>"a simple change of rulers is not a fount of liberty"</i> and <i>"any
revolutionary program that doesn't contain a clause concerning the
taking of the lands [and workplaces] by the people is a program of
the ruling classes, who will never struggle against their own interests."</i>
[<b>Dreams of Freedom</b>, p. 142 and p. 293] As Kropotkin stressed, the
<i>"failure of all nationalist movements . . . lies in this curse . . .
that the economic question . . . remains on the side . . . In a word,
it seems to me that in each national movement we have a major task: to
set forth the question [of nationalism] on an economic basis and carry
out agitation against serfdom [and other forms of exploitation] at one
with the struggle against [oppression by] foreign nationality."</i> [quoted
by Martin A. Miller, <b>Kropotkin</b>, p. 230]
</p><p>
Moreover, we should point out that Anarchists in imperialist countries
have also opposed national oppression by both words and deeds. For
example, the prominent Japanese Anarchist Kotoku Shusi was framed
and executed in 1910 after campaigning against Japanese expansionism.
In Italy, the anarchist movement opposed Italian expansionism into Eritrea
and Ethiopia in the 1880s and 1890s, and organised a massive anti-war
movement against the 1911 invasion of Libya. In 1909, the Spanish
Anarchists organised a mass strike against intervention in Morocco.
More recently, anarchists in France struggled against two colonial wars
(in Indochina and Algeria) in the late 50's and early 60's, anarchists
world-wide opposed US aggression in Latin America and Vietnam (without,
we must note, supporting the Cuban and Vietnamese Stalinist regimes),
opposed the Gulf War (during which most anarchists raised the call of
<i>"No war but the class war"</i>) as well as opposing Soviet imperialism.
</p><p>
In practice national liberation movements are full of contradictions between
the way the rank and file sees progress being made (and their hopes and
dreams) and the wishes of their ruling class members/leaders. The leadership
will always resolve this conflict in favour of the future ruling class,
at best paying lip-service to social issues by always stressing that
addressing them must be postponed to <b>after</b> the foreign power has left
the country. That makes it possible for individual members of these struggles
to realise the limited nature of nationalism and break from these politics
towards anarchism. At times of major struggle and conflict this contradiction
will become very apparent and at this stage it is possible that large numbers
may break from nationalism in practice, if not in theory, by pushing the
revolt into social struggles and changes. In such circumstances, theory
may catch up with practice and nationalist ideology rejected in favour of
a wider concept of freedom, particularly <b>if</b> an alternative that addresses
these concerns exists. Providing that anarchists do not compromise our ideals
such movements against foreign domination can be wonderful opportunities to
spread our politics, ideals and ideas -- and to show up the limitations and
dangers of nationalism itself and present a viable alternative.
</p><p>
For anarchists, the key question is whether freedom is for abstract
concepts like "the nation" or for the individuals who make up the
nationality and give it life. Oppression must be fought on all fronts,
within nations and internationally, in order for working-class people to
gain the fruits of freedom. Any national liberation struggle which bases
itself on nationalism is doomed to failure as a movement for extending
human freedom. Thus anarchists <i>"refuse to participate in national liberation
fronts; they participate in class fronts which may or may not be involved
in national liberation struggles. The struggle must spread to establish
economic, political and social structures in the liberated territories,
based on federalist and libertarian organisations."</i> [Alfredo M. Bonanno,
<b>Anarchism and the National Liberation Struggle</b>, p. 12]
</p><p>
The Makhnovist movement in the Ukraine expressed this perspective well
when it was fighting for freedom during the Russian Revolution and Civil
War. The Ukraine at the time was a very diverse country, with many
distinct national and ethnic groups living within it which made this
issue particularly complex:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Clearly, each national group has a natural and indisputable entitlement
to speak its language, live in accordance with its customs, retain its
beliefs and rituals . . . in short, to maintain and develop its national
culture in every sphere. It is obvious that this clear and specific
stance has absolutely nothing to do with narrow nationalism of the
'separatist' variety which pits nation against nation and substitutes
an artificial and harmful separation for the struggle to achieve a
natural social union of toilers in one shared social communion.
</p><p>
"In our view, national aspirations of a natural, wholesome character
(language, customs, culture, etc.) can achieve full and fruitful
satisfaction only in the union of nationalities rather than in their
antagonism . . .
</p><p>
"The speedy construction of a new life on [libertarian] socialist
foundations will ineluctably lead to development of the culture
peculiar to each nationality. Whenever we Makhnovist insurgents
speak of independence of the Ukraine, we ground it in the social
and economic plane of the toilers. We proclaim the right of the
Ukrainian people (and every other nation) to self-determination,
not in the narrow, nationalist sense . . . but in the sense of the
toilers' right to self-determination. We declare that the toiling
folk of the Ukraine's towns and countryside have shown everyone
through their heroic fight that they do not wish any longer to
suffer political power and have no use for it, and that they
consciously aspire to a libertarian society. We thus declare that
all political power . . . is to be regarded . . . as an enemy
and counter-revolutionary. To the very last drop of their blood
they will wage a ferocious struggle against it, in defence of
their entitlement to self-organisation."</i> [quoted by Alexandre
Skirda, <b>Nestor Makhno Anarchy's Cossack</b>, pp. 377-8]
</blockquote></p><p>
So while anarchists unmask nationalism for what it is, we do not disdain
the basic struggle for identity and self-management which nationalism
diverts. We encourage direct action and the spirit of revolt against all
forms of oppression -- social, economic, political, racial, sexual,
religious and national. By this method, we aim to turn national liberation
struggles into <b><i>human</i></b> liberation struggles. And while fighting against
oppression, we struggle for anarchy, a free confederation of communes
based on workplace and community assemblies. A confederation which will
place the nation-state, all nation-states, into the dust-bin of history
where it belongs. This struggle for popular self-determination is, as
such, considered to be part of a wider, international movement for <i>"a
social revolution cannot be confined to a single isolated country, it
is by its very nature international in scope"</i> and so popular movements
must <i>"link their aspirations and forces with the aspirations and forces
of all other countries"</i> and so the <i>"only way of arriving at emancipation
lies in the fraternity of oppressed peoples in an international alliance
of all countries."</i> [Bakunin, quoted by Cahm, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 40 and p. 36]
</p><p>
And as far as "national" identity within an anarchist society is concerned,
our position is clear and simple. As Bakunin noted with respect to the
Polish struggle for national liberation during the last century, anarchists,
as <i>"adversaries of every State, . . . reject the rights and frontiers
called historic. For us Poland only begins, only truly exists there
where the labouring masses are and want to be Polish, it ends where,
renouncing all particular links with Poland, the masses wish to establish
other national links."</i> [quoted by Jean Caroline Cahm, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 43]
</p>
</body>
</html>
|
