Six Errors Made by Anarchists About National Self-Determination

by Wayne Price

There are various debates among anarchists. One of the biggest controversies is over “national self-determination”/“national liberation”/“anti-imperialism.” This debate has become particularly intense over the Ukrainian-Russian war and the Palestinian-Israeli war. Some anarchists, such as myself, have supported the Ukrainians and the Palestinians on the basis of national self-determination. Many other anarchists have rejected support for the Ukrainians—and some, support for the Palestinians. They deny any right of national self-determination. Some even deny the reality of imperialism; they are anti-anti-imperialists.

I write of anarchists, but the same errors are true of libertarian-autonomous Marxists. Personally I identify as a revolutionary anarchist-socialist, in the tradition of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, and the anarcho-syndicalists and anarchist-communists. I think that many anarchists reject national self-determination and liberation due to various errors and misunderstandings, often out of ignorance. I will explore what I regard as six such fallacies held by many anarchists.

Errors:

(1) National self-determination was invented by Lenin. Therefore it is Leninist, not anarchist.

The oppression of nations is not something first noticed by V.I. Lenin. What is it? An anarchist writes, “National domination or imperialism is defined by the imposition of social force [by] the dominant classes of one state on the entire population of another state or of a nation-race (people or homeland) for the benefit of those who impose themselves…when a people…is the victim of economic dependence and/or exploitation.” (Correa 2024; p. 26)

As a result, the freedom of oppressed nations means liberation from this domination and exploitation. It means the ability to decide whether to be independent or merged with another country. It is the freedom to decide its own political and economic system. Lenin indeed advocated this (how he betrayed it once in power is another matter).

However, this “right” had first been part of the classical democratic program of the capitalist-democratic revolution. This includes the English revolution, the American revolution, the French revolution, Latin American revolutions, and so on. That program included freedom of speech, of assembly, of religion, of the press, the right to bear arms, trial by jury, land to those who work it, election of officials, equality of all before the law (regardless of gender, race, or religion)—and self-determination for all peoples.

In the First World War, the leader of U.S. imperialism, “the American President Woodrow Wilson had declared, in his celebrated ‘Fourteen Points’…that every nation should be able to determine its own future, free from interference by others….This applied to the Poles, the Czechs, and the Yugoslavs…” among others (Evans 2004; p. 63) Wilson was certainly not a Leninist. He was, however, an imperialist hypocrite raising national self-determination.

Capitalist states have never lived up to their program. They have had to be forced to implement it by popular pressure and revolts. In our epoch of capitalist decline, carrying out this program has fallen to the left. This is why classical democratic demands have so often become misidentified with Leninism—or anarchism.

Some varieties of Leninism (such as Maoism) and other authoritarian leftisms, have come to treat oppressed nations as national blocs. They overlook class and other divisions within nations. They have treated the contradiction between imperialist and oppressed nations as the fundamental conflict in global capitalism, rather than class. They have often uncritically supported national dictators, so long as these were against the U.S.

However, this classless and nationalist position is not an inevitable interpretation of national self-determination. This is demonstrated by anarchists and others who advocate revolutionary opposition by workers and oppressed people against national rulers as well as all imperialists. (How Leninism devolved into this non-class position is another story.)

(2) Anarchists don’t believe in national self-determination.

The false assumption here is that anarchists, as internationalists, do not recognize nations, regard all nations as nation-states (that is, regard nations as synonymous with their states), and reject nations because they have class (and other) internal conflicts and we are on the side of the working class against the capitalist minority. It is ignorantly assumed that all anarchists have always denied self-determination.

In fact many revolutionary anarchists have supported national self-determination. Mikhail Bakunin is regarded as the “founder” of revolutionary anarchism. He wrote,
“Nationality, like individuality, is a natural fact. It denotes the inalienable right of individuals, groups, association and regions to their own way of life….I will always champion the cause of oppressed nationalities struggling to liberate themselves from the domination of the state.” (Dolgoff 1980; p. 401) (By “natural fact” he does not mean it is biological but that it is an unplanned historical development. The “state” in this case is the dominating foreign state.)

Bakunin declared, “Every people weak or strong, every province, every commune has the absolute right to be free, autonomous, to live and govern themselves according to their particular interests and needs.” He distinguished between the “state”, which he opposed, and the people’s “homeland.” He asserted, “The State is not the homeland…. I feel frankly and always, the patriot of all the oppressed homelands.” (Correa 2024; p. 409)

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

Support for national self-determination was stated by Peter Kropotkin, Errico Malatesta, and many other anarchists. (E.g., for Malatesta’s defense of national self-determination, see Price 2022.) Revolutionary anarchists supported India and Ireland against the British empire. They supported national liberation struggles in Eastern Europe, including Poland and Greece. Anarchist anti-imperialists fought in national uprisings in Cuba and Mexico. The anarchist Nestor Makhno led his Ukrainian rebels against Polish, German, and Russian armies, while also fighting off right-wing nationalists. Anarchists led Korean forces in Manchuria against Japan. French anarchists supported Algerian forces against their own government. And so on.

In Daniel Guerin’s Anarchism (1970), he writes, “True internationalism rests on self-determination, which implies the right of secession….Lenin and the early congresses of the [Communist] Third International, adopted this concept from Bakunin….” (p. 67) This goes too far; I doubt that Lenin ever adopted a concept from anarchists, for whose theory he had little regard.

In Bakunin’s words, anarchists “always champion the cause of oppressed nationalities” and are “always the patriot[s] of all the oppressed homelands.” What is distinctive about anarchist support for national liberation is a focus on mobilizing the exploited and oppressed of the nation, instead of looking for unity with the ruling class. And having the goal of a stateless, self-managed, federalized socialism.

(3) “National self-determination,”“national liberation,” and “anti-imperialism” are the same as “nationalism”—which anarchists oppose.

“National self-determination” is a broad goal. the freedom of a people to determine their future. But how will this be achieved? There are various programs. The dominant one has been nationalism. This program calls for the unity of the nation behind its rulers (or would-be rulers). Divisions, especially class divisions, are to be papered over. It does not reach out to the workers in the oppressor country. The goal is to make the national leadership into the new ruling class of its country. This means some variety of capitalism (possibly Stalinist state capitalism). It requires a national state to enforce the power of the nation’s capitalists and their minions.

Anarchist anti-imperialists reject the program of nationalism. We raise a different program to achieve national self-determination. We do not equate nations with their states. Anarchists say that true independence of oppressed nations can only be achieved through opposition by the working class and oppressed of the nation, to both the native ruling class and the foreign oppressor—as part of an international revolution.

Through nationalism, at most the oppressed nation might achieve its own independent state, with its own flag, its own currency, its own police and army, and its own capitalists. But it will still be dominated by the world market, which is ruled by the big capitalist economies. It will still be dominated by the international power politics of the big imperialists, and always under threat of interference or invasion. Only a world revolution can result in real national freedom.

Anarchist-socialists may participate within a movement for national liberation, while fighting for their full program against the nationalists. As internationalists, anarchists have a negative agreement with nationalists. We agree only on what we are both against—imperialist domination of oppressed nations. We disagree on what we are for: a classless, state-less, autonomous country in an international federation of free peoples.

(4) National self-determination is the same as Trotskyism

This is a variant of point (1), since Trotskyism is a variety of Leninism (and therefore of Marxism). It is a charge repeatedly hurled at me, since I used to be an unorthodox Trotskyist. However, I came to see that he and Lenin had established a one-party police-state dictatorship. This laid the basis for Stalin’s mass-murdering totalitarianism. So I rejected Trotskyism for anarchism.

Well, what had Trotsky actually written about national self-determination? In 1938, he wrote the “Transitional Program” for what he hoped to be a new, Fourth, International. Knowing that World War II would soon break out, Trotsky considered it would be another inter-imperialist war, with the workers having no stake in either side.

However it would be different for the oppressed nations. He expected “colonial or semicolonial countries to use the war in order to cast off the yoke of slavery. Their war will be not imperialist but liberating. It will be the duty of the international proletariat to aid the oppressed nations in their war against the oppressors.” (Trotsky 1977; p. 131)

It is possible that another imperialist government—in competition with the one oppressing the rebellious country—might give aid to that country (as the USA has aided Ukraine against Russia). The “Transitional Program” says that revolutionaries should not give support to that “helpful” imperialist state. “The workers of imperialist countries, however, cannot help an anti-imperialist country through their own government….The proletariat of the imperialist country continues to remain in class opposition to its own government and supports the non-imperialist ‘ally’ through its own methods….” (p. 132)

At the same time, “…the proletariat does not in the slightest degree solidarize…with the bourgeois government of the colonial country….It maintains full political independence….Giving aid in a just and progressive war, the revolutionary proletariat wins the sympathy of the workers in the colonies…and increases its ability to help overthrow the bourgeois government in the colonial country.” (p. 132) This is not nationalism but internationalism. “Our basic slogan remains: Workers of the World Unite!” (p. 133) (Existing Trotskyist organizations rarely follow this perspective.)

In other works, Trotsky applied national self-determination to Ukraine. In 1939, he raised the slogan of “A united, free, and independent workers’ and peasants’ Soviet Ukraine,” or simply, “For a Free, Independent, Soviet Ukraine!” He added, “Not the slightest concession to the Ukrainian nationalists, either clerical-reactionary or liberal-pacifist!” (Trotsky 2009)

An anarchist perspective on national self-determination would be pretty much in agreement with the quoted section of the “Transitional Program”—with two very important differences.

(i) Trotsky, like Lenin, was a centralist. They hoped that support for the self-determination of oppressed nations would lead to the voluntary merger of oppressed and oppressor nations into larger, centralized, units, eventually into a centralized world. Anarchists, however, while being internationalists, are also decentralists, regionalists, and pluralists. We cherish a plurality of societies and cultures. Therefore we advocate the federation of peoples, from the bottom up, rather than centralization.

(ii) Like Trotsky, the anarchists’ ultimate goal of supporting a nation’s struggles is to “overthrow the bourgeois government,” in both the imperialist and oppressed countries. For Trotsky, this is to be followed by establishing centralized “workers’ states.” But revolutionary anarchists want to replace all capitalist governments with non-state associations of councils, committees, assemblies, and self-managed organizations. (For further discussion of the relationship of anarchism, Trotskyism, and liberalism, see Price 2020.)


(5) Anarchists support national liberation struggles but do not support national wars waged by (or for) national States.

This is contradictory. Right now all national struggles are waged either by national states (such as Ukraine) or by leaderships which want to set up new national states (such as in Palestine)—with the possible exception of the Kurds’ Rojava. To reject all these wars of liberation is in fact to reject all national self-determination.

Oppressed nations, fighting for independence, have been led either by national governments or those who wish to create them (with themselves in charge). That is the peoples’ misfortune. Further, the workers and farmers and others of these countries are not (yet?) anarchists; they accept (or do not oppose) their states and would-be states leading the struggles. That is their mistake. Believing in national self-determination is to believe that peoples should make their own decisions and learn from their mistakes. It is not for some imperial power to decide for them what is in their interest, nor yet for a minority of anarchists to decide for them.
But between the people and their imperialist or colonial oppressors, anarchists must be on the side of the oppressed and exploited, rather than be neutral—even if they (unfortunately) have states. But we remain political opponents of those states.

When a labor union goes on strike—but one which is “led” by bureaucratic supporters of capitalism and the state—anarchists must not be neutral or opposed to the strike due to its rotten leadership. Instead, we support the strike, because we support the workers. We participate in the strike and raise money for the strike. Meanwhile we try, as best as is possible under the circumstances, to propagandize against the sell-out bureaucrats, to call for greater militancy and internal union democracy, and to advocate revolutionary anarchist-socialism.
This is the same approach that should be used in wars of national liberation.
(6) Anarchists should not support wars of national liberation if the oppressed nation gets aid from other imperialist powers.

The modern world is divided by competing imperialist states as well as between imperialist states and the oppressed nations (of the Global South and Eastern Europe). Naturally imperialists will seek to weaken their competitors by supporting rebellious nations against rival imperialisms. And naturally oppressed nations will seek aid from imperialisms which are opponents of their immediate oppressor (under the rubric “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”).

For example, during World War II, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan gave political and military support to colonies of the British, French, and Dutch Empires and U.S. imperialism. The U.S., on the other side, aided China against Japanese imperialism. During the Cold War, the imperialist Soviet Union aided national rebellions against Western colonialism throughout the world. This included Vietnam, Cuba, and South Africa’s ANC. The U.S. supported Tito’s Yugoslavia when it broke from the Soviet Union. It gave political support to the other European Russian satellites.

Recently, the U.S. (until Trump) gave massive military aid to the Ukrainians. The Palestinian resistance has been mostly armed by Iran, a regional sub-imperialist. The Kurds of Rojava have been armed and aided in an alliance with the U.S.

A nation fighting for its independence surely has the right to get military aid from wherever it can. This is better than being crushed by its mighty opponent. No doubt it will make as many of its own weapons as it can, and will try to capture weapons from the enemy. But an oppressed nation is bound to be poorer and weaker than its imperialist enemy. This does not mean that, say, U.S. radicals should campaign for U.S. bombs for Ukraine (or, hypothetically, for Palestine), but that we support Ukraine’s freedom to get arms from wherever it can. (That would apply whether it had a capitalist state or was a federation of free communes.)

Many anarchists think that Ukraine has long since been overwhelmed by U.S. domination. However, the Ukrainians continue to be the ones fighting and dying against the Russian invaders. It is still their war. If U.S. or European troops take over the war and become the major military force fighting with Russian (and North Korean) troops, then it will have become primarily a war between imperialisms—and no longer to be supported. So far this has not happened and almost certainly will not happen.

While it is justifiable for an invaded nation to take aid from a rival imperialism, it should be careful. Revolutionary anarchists must warn the nation’s workers not to have illusions about the imperial “ally.” “Forewarned is forearmed.” The Great Powers are no lovers of the rights of small countries. They give aid only to further their own nefarious ends. They will turn on their supposed allies in a heartbeat if they think it is in their interest. The Kurds have had that experience time and again. The U.S., under the vile Trump, is currently giving the lie to all U.S. declarations about “defending democracy” in Ukraine.

Conclusion

In Felipe Correa’s brilliant presentation of Bakunin’s revolutionary anarchism, the Brazilian scholar and activist writes, “The defense of internationalism…in no way means abandoning national liberation struggles and anti-imperialism. After all, engagement in these causes does not inevitably imply support for the State since it is not synonymous with nation, race, or homeland….” (2025; p. 406)

“Such are the foundations of anarchist anti-imperialism: it is [working] classist, anti-statist, internationalist, and aims at a new, completely emancipated society. Moreover, like any revolutionary and socialist movement, it must be a mass movement….Anarchist anti-imperialism claims the concomitant end of both national domination and class and state domination in the nation struggling for liberation.” (p. 408)

References

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

Dolgoff, Sam (1980) (Ed). Bakunin on Anarchism. Montreal: Black Rose Books.

Evans, Richard J. (2004). The Coming of the Third Reich. NY: Penguin Press.

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

Price, Wayne (2020). “Our Morals and Theirs; Means and Ends in Anarchist, Liberal, and Marxist Morals.” https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31889?search_text=Wayne

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

Trotsky, Leon (2009). “Problem of the Ukraine.” https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/04/ukraine.html

Trotsky, Leon (1977). The Transitional Program for Socialist Revolution. (Eds.: George Breitman & Fred Stanton.) NY: Pathfinder Press.

Comments

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 08/07/2025 - 05:59

And in the process you ended up getting into bed with the most rapacious empire on the plant.
Way to go.

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 08/07/2025 - 16:39

Some factual errors by Price.

"Recently, the U.S. (until Trump) gave massive military aid to the Ukrainians."

The first Trump regime was also the first to arm Ukraine following the 2014 Russian aggression. Two weeks ago the latest Trump regime approved more than $330 million in arms sales to Ukraine. In addition to that direct support, various NATO countries are now pledging to buy US arms and send them to Ukraine. In 2024, Ukraine became the top arms importer in the whole world. Never let facts get in the way of a good "anarchist" yarn about state's rights though.

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Fri, 08/08/2025 - 12:01

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

You (anon 16:39) apparently agree with my statement, "Recently, the U.S. ... gave massive military aid to the Ukrainians." Your whole expose of my "factual errors" (in the plural) is the two words in parentheses "(until Trump)". Actually Trump has gone back and forth on military aid to Ukraine, and anyway this has nothing to do with my discussion.

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 08/08/2025 - 12:10

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

Yes, this particular factual error of yours is in your phrase "until Trump." Two weeks ago, the current Trump regime approved hundreds of millions of dollars in new arms sales to Ukraine. So it's false to say that the US gave massive military aid to the Ukrainian state (who you substitute with "Ukrainians", as if the US was arming random civilians) "until Trump." The aid hasn't stopped with Trump. It also started with the first Trump regime. Your claim is false, and if it has nothing to do with your argument, perhaps you should blame yourself for adding extraneous and false information to your text, rather than blaming someone who pays more attention to US policy than you bother to and correctly points out your mistake.

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 08/07/2025 - 20:03

"A nation fighting for its independence surely has the right to get military aid from wherever it can. "

That's the other way around, Ukwayne. There's very rare instances of nations fighting on "their own will" and deciding to get foreign aid or not. Natlib struggles at least since the 20th century were in most instance the *product* of imperialist or inter-imperialist politics. Like there was never a Palestinian, or UkWaynian, or even Cuban, Angolan and Algerian natlib movements without the backing of foreign powers. Pan-Arab/Palestinian movement is actually the one where you had the widest variety of foreign backing... from the British to Nazi Germany, and from the USSR to Islamist Iran and some Arab oil princes. These movements didn't arise from 'the will of the People", but the Raison d'État and lesser more private interest of superpowers.

Also the right of nations, Wayne? Really!?

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 08/08/2025 - 07:38

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Yes, finish it off. States don't have rights. That's just a scheme for bureaucraties to claim a monopoly on protecting the rights of some people.

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Fri, 08/08/2025 - 12:32

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

You (anon 07:38) write, "States don't have rights. That's just a scheme for bureaucraties to claim a monopoly on protecting the rights of some people."

Had you bothered to read my piece you would know that I am not defending the "rights" of states, but the "rights" (freedom) of peoples (nations, countries, national communities) to determine their own futures.

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 08/08/2025 - 13:12

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

Have you bothered to figure out the difference between states and peoples? Because it doesn't seem like it. You make no distinction between Ukrainians and the Ukrainian state when you write about Ukrainians being armed by the US, as if America was airdropping weapons to random civilians who were engaged in a resistance separate from the Ukrainian army. Which is not the case.

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Fri, 08/08/2025 - 14:44

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

You (Anon 13:12) write that I don't seem to understand the difference between peoples and states.

If *you* understand that there is a difference you are head and shoulders above a lot of anarchists; so many seem to think that if I support the self-determination of nations, I must be supporting the self-determination of states!

In any case, see my Section (5) for my response.

Also, see my conclusion, in parentheses, to Section (6): "we support Ukraine’s freedom to get arms from wherever it can. (That would apply whether it had a capitalist state or was a federation of free communes.)"

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 08/08/2025 - 17:40

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

No, it's not because you support national self-determination that you must be supporting self-determination of states, it's because you explicitly say anarchists should support "national wars waged by (or for) national States" and that anarchists should support the freedom of states to get arms from wherever they can, including from the capitalist arms industry of the state of Israel, for example. Anarchists, historically, supported national liberation wars in spite of states, not because states or prospective states were involved, and anarchists do not support capitalist-statist arms industries and states supplying other states. This is where you confuse peoples and states, in contrast to say, a Malatesta, who was not confused like you are. You also seem to be unaware of the fact that most Indigenous nations in North America never had states (meaning that a traditionalist national liberation struggle could not be a struggle for a new state). Whereas other anarchists in history have been aware of this.

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Fri, 08/08/2025 - 12:14

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

You (anon 20:03) write, "Natlib struggles at least since the 20th century were in most instance the *product* of imperialist or inter-imperialist politics." Of course national liberation struggles are the product of *imperialist* politics, in the sense that they are struggles of oppressed peoples against imperialist powers. But what you seem to mean is that struggles of oppressed nations have been *nothing but* the product of conflicts between imperialists (or have been *mainly*--*primarily*--the product of inter-imperialist politics). This is nonsense. It utterly denies the agency of oppressed people, of workers and peasants, in colonized nations.

The only argument you give for this great-power chauvinist conclusion is, "Like there [were] never...natlib movements without the backing of foreign powers. " The *backing* of foreign powers does not prove that the indigenous people are not motived to fight for their own good reasons.

See Section (6) of my article, which answers your arguments.

You write, with incredulity, "Also the right of nations, Wayne? Really!?"
For answers, see Section (2). How other anarchists supported the rights of nations. Really.

Tim Declercq Fri, 08/08/2025 - 07:50

Alma died a few weeks ago on 28 June, she was found dead after an accidental overdose on painkillers. She had been on heavy painkillers ever since she was seriously wounded by grenade fragments in 2014 during the defense of Slavyansk. She was then an activist of SAER Donetsk and afterwards of the LLPR.

I suggest you go talk to Grisha (https://vk.com/id316465460) who knew her well and explain to him how important it was for her to die for your so-called "national liberation struggle." But I'm sure you won't do that, and as Grisha would say, and I quote him: это ты диванный эксперт, который не жил на Донбассе и знаешь только о нас по видосам с ютуба.

At this rate there soon won't be any anarchists left in Donbass, but hey, as long as it makes your favourite Nation glorious, right?

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 08/08/2025 - 08:43

In reply to by Tim Declercq

Wait until you find out that more than one person died in the Belgian Congo and Ruanda-Urundi because your fellow countrymen also thought national liberation was bunk. I'm sure your heart strings will be pulled and you'll start considering Africans to be as human as people in the Donbas. One can hope anyway.

Tim Declercq Fri, 08/08/2025 - 09:03

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Well when you go talk to Grisha be sure to take a Ukrainian flag as a gift, I'm sure they could use an extra doormat. Since I've been quoting him, let me quote him on that too: Пусть своей тряпкой с цветом детской неожиданности - подтеруться. Мы много таких флагов использовали, как коврики для ног)

And now of course we get to the real reason why Wayne and his ilk like you so patently refuse to actually go talk to the anarchist groups, revolutionary unions, and others who actually live in Donbass. Because they'll make it crystal clear how much they reject your so-called "national liberation struggle" and so there you would be left standing, proclaiming a "national liberation struggle" for people who harshly reject to be "liberated" by you like this. And it would be clear to anyone that you're not liberators, you're conquerors and occupiers using brutal military force backed by the largest imperial bloc on the planet to subdue people who do not want to be "liberated" by you, and the only liberation you're actually doing is "liberating" people from their lives.

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 08/08/2025 - 09:06

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Lumumba and the related national liberation movement is one of rare instances of an actual standalone movement that did *not* arise from foreign powers fighting inter-imperialist wars. Also one where an "independent" republic had been achieved, but was too early for the USSR and Cuba to back the regime like they did later with Angola. They equally did not become a strong, unified enough insurgency up against the vicious, mass-murdering scum of the Congolese reactionary forces and Afrikaner White supremacists involved in the region. Any state in formation needs a potent army.

Are you implying that Timmy's a racist?

Tim Declercq Fri, 08/08/2025 - 09:11

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Oh and when I mentioned that Alma was wounded in 2014 during the defense of Slavyansk, you do know the defense from whom, right? That's right, your and Wayne's favourite nationalist-fascist battalions fighting for the glory of Ukraine.

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 08/08/2025 - 09:29

In reply to by Tim Declercq

Gotta love the "anarchist" logic of Declercq that to be against Belgian colonialism you must also support Ukrainian nationalism. On par with those who accused Goldman and Berkman of being pro-German simply because they opposed all sides of WWI. Brilliant stuff. Anarchism is when you lie about what other anarchists believe in because you're too stupid to come up with your own argument.

Tim Declercq Fri, 08/08/2025 - 09:51

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

My original comment to Wayne was about the war in Ukraine, nothing to do with Congo or Belgian colonialism. You are the one who started talking about Congo, so you were just making random off-topic comments implying that I don't consider Africans human because...I'm Belgian? Brilliant logic!

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 08/08/2025 - 10:02

In reply to by Tim Declercq

You put national liberation struggle in scare quotes. Price being a dumbass about the Ukrainian state didn't force you to do that, you did it yourself. If you're against national liberation in general, not just in Ukraine, then by definition you are against the liberation of Belgium's African colonies. Don't try to pass the buck to other people for your own reactionary politics. Nobody forced anyone to accuse Goldman and Berkman of being pro-German either. They decided on their own to lie about Goldman and Berkman's antipolitics because they see everything as a competition where anything goes. Just as you choose to lie about other anarchists and what they think about national liberation, nationalism and states. You could simply choose otherwise, choose to delineate your own particular politics, and choose to critique Price for his views on states' rights, rather than lie about national liberation in general. But you choose a simpler, more unethical route. Just lie about other people's (anti)politics and moralize, like a good little populist politician.

Tim Declercq Fri, 08/08/2025 - 10:20

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Of course I put national liberation struggle in quotes, because a war to "liberate" people who themselves *harshly reject* such liberation can hardly be called a "national liberation struggle" now can it? Of course, to understand how harshly this supposedly liberation war is rejected by those people one would first have to actually go talk to the people who live there, something I've been trying to get Wayne to do for a long time now, giving him numerous contacts of revolutionary unions and anarchists who reside there, as I've now done yet again.

That says nothing whatsoever about my stance on national liberation struggles in general. In fact I have no general stance about this, or to be more precise, my stance is to consider the specifics and context of each struggle on its own terms. Indeed, it is exactly that stance that led me to find and get in touch with anarchist and other class struggle groups who live there in the first place.

"You could simply choose otherwise, choose to delineate your own particular politics, and choose to critique Price for his views on states' rights, rather than lie about national liberation in general. But you choose a simpler, more unethical route. Just lie about other people's (anti)politics and moralize, like a good little populist politician."

Oh please, it is you who is lying that I said anything whatsoever about national liberation in general. If you could project any harder you'd be a cinema.

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 08/08/2025 - 10:49

In reply to by Tim Declercq

To say that Ukraine isn't engaged in a national liberation struggle is not the same as to put national liberation struggle itself in scare quotes because Price supports the Ukrainian state, or to accuse anyone who's against Belgian colonialism of also necessarily supporting Ukrainian nationalism. That is your projection, which you should deal with first before accusing other people of projecting. But since you started out unethically, like those who falsely accused Goldman and Berkman of being pro-German, why would any of us expect you to end up in an ethical place? Instead you just double down on your first mistake of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a Ukrainian nationalist. No difference between you and the anarcho-militarists who falsely accuse anyone of who's anti-NATO of being pro-Russian. Sort your own shit out first.

Tim Declercq Fri, 08/08/2025 - 11:14

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Putting national liberation struggle in quotes when referring to the war in Ukraine, at least in as much as it concerns the Donbass region, is a perfectly valid way of expressing that the war in question is not an actual national liberation struggle, I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you. Your contention that putting national liberation struggle in quotes in that context necessarily means that you're against any and all national liberation struggle is untenable. It's equivalent to claiming that someone who writes "People's Republic" of China is necessarily against any and all people's republics, instead of just saying that the Chinese state is not an actual people's republic. Or more to the topic, that someone writing "people's militia" of the DNR is necessarily against any and all people's militias, instead of just saying that the DNR army is not an actual people's militia. If you can't understand this then so be it.

As for your whining about ethics and about accusing people of supporting various things, you started out by accusing me of making general claims about national liberation and...implying that I don't consider Africans humans, of all things. I'm going to leave the discussion here, and I will happily leave you in your self-righteousness, this discussion is not productive. I came into this discussion to make a comment to Wayne, and this whole sidetrack is frankly just a bunch of whiny BS from someone who doesn't seem to understand the use of quotation marks.

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 08/08/2025 - 11:37

In reply to by Tim Declercq

Fair enough, unquestionably, the best thing to do when someone doesn't understand your vague use of language like "Nation glorious" or your scare quotes, is to falsely accuse them of being a Ukrainian nationalist, regardless of the fact that you know nothing about their (anti)politics. Then make sure to double down on your projection when challenged rather than acknowledge any possible error. Alternatively, accuse them of being a German or Russian, etc, nationalist, whatever smear campaign works in each specific case, pragmatism über alles. Anarchy is when your lie beats out the others.

Tim Declercq Fri, 08/08/2025 - 12:00

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Just a small remark on this "Nation glorious" which seems to be referring to my comment to Wayne saying: "At this rate there soon won't be any anarchists left in Donbass, but hey, as long as it makes your favourite Nation glorious, right?"

This is in reference to the official battle cry of the Ukrainian army, "Slava Ukraini!" (Glory to Ukraine!). Those actions by the Ukrainian army resulting in this reduction in alive anarchists in Donbass are done under the cry of "Glory to Ukraine!" hence my remark of "as long as it makes your favourite Nation [ie Ukraine] glorious, right?"

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 08/08/2025 - 12:14

In reply to by Tim Declercq

One good way to build anarchy is to accuse someone who's just as, if not more against Ukrainian nationalism and Price's stupidity than you are of being a Ukrainian nationalist and a Price acolyte. It's always good methodology to throw false accusations around and then double down on them. It's good for everyone, yourself included. Ingenious, really. We fight nationalism by lying about anti-nationalists.

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Fri, 08/08/2025 - 13:09

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

(Anon 10:02): In your remarks to Tim, you make an effort to disassociate yourself from me, referring to "Price being a dumbass about the Ukrainian state" and "to critique Price for his views on states' rights." States' rights!

Perhaps you did not see the Conclusion of my paper, which quotes (in agreement) the Brazilian anarchist and Bakunin scholar Felipe Correa, "The defense of internationalism…in no way means abandoning national liberation struggles and anti-imperialism. After all, engagement in these causes does not inevitably imply support for the State since it is not synonymous with nation, race, or homeland."

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 08/09/2025 - 08:24

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Are you aware of what “national liberation” militarism is doing there RIGHT NOW?

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 08/09/2025 - 09:44

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Everyone knows that anarchism is when Belgium doesn't fold under the pressure of the 1959 riots in the Congo and instead maintains a firm hand of control, preventing the calamities we see there today. To an anarchist, it is horrible when the colonized rebel, and preferable that the colonizers remain in power because who knows what could go wrong in the future without enlightened Belgian guidance!

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Fri, 08/08/2025 - 12:24

In reply to by Tim Declercq

Tim repeatedly focuses on the Ukrainian war on the Donbas separatists. I think that the Ukrainian state should have offered the eastern Russian-speakers autonomy at least. But I also think that they were playing into the hands of Russian imperialism, whatever their motives. In any case, the issue today is no longer that of the Donbas, which has been completely overrun and taken over by Russia. The issue is the whole Ukrainian people. They are being invaded and occupied by Russian imperialism, which is trying to completely take it over, destroying its national culture, language, and self-determination. That is the issue.

Tim Declercq Fri, 08/08/2025 - 13:05

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

Calling it "the Ukrainian war on the Donbas separatists" is like calling what's happening in Gaza "Israel's war on Hamas." At the very start of the military conflict the Donbass separatists were rather marginal, it is exactly the brutal suppression by the Ukrainian state of the movement in Donbass in response to the Maidan events, from indiscriminate shelling of civilian population centers to fascist militia groups torturing and otherwise brutalizing tons of civilians, that opened the floodgates for volunteers for the separatist militia groups.

And the Donbass is still at the core of the issue, your claim that Russia is trying to take over the whole of Ukraine to destroy its national culture and language is nonsense. They don't have the manpower to do this nor are they even trying to deploy the manpower for that, and if you recall the peace terms at the start of this invasion they were for the Donetsk and Luhansk regions to be given to Russia. This war is fundamentally over who controls the Donbass region (and by now other parts of the south-east).

But getting to my point, what you can't deny is that the weapons being provided to the Ukrainian military which you so cheer for are in fact being used against the population of Donbass, including anarchists and other revolutionaries. While Alma may have died from complications originating in the original 2014 fighting, other anarchists such as Nikolaj, also from SAER Donetsk, was killed a bit over a year ago during more indiscriminate shelling of the city of Donetsk. And that's of course still ignoring the numerous casualties from the forced mobilization in the DNR and LNR who ended up getting left to die in one-sided slaughterfests such as in the southern part of the Kharkiv region back in late summer 2022. Such as Alexander from the Donetsk miners union who died in that particular slaughterfest or Sergey who ended up shot in both his legs in Mariupol. And those are just people I personally happen to know about.

The issue here is your cheering for providing weapons to a state army that is fighting for control over a region whose population by and large doesn't even want to be "liberated" by them, and certainly not like this, while apparently not even having the courage to go talk to the people at the receiving end of those weapons and being directly confronted with the result of your position. And no, the issue isn't the whole Ukrainian people, as if places like Lviv are being razed to the ground like the cities of Donbass are.

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Fri, 08/08/2025 - 13:34

In reply to by Tim Declercq

You (Tim) write, "your claim that Russia is trying to take over the whole of Ukraine to destroy its national culture and language is nonsense...if you recall the peace terms at the start of this invasion...." If *you* will recall the start of the current invasion (leaving aside the earlier Russian military infiltration of the Donbas), it was a direct attack on Kyviv, with the obvious intention of overthrowing the Ukrainian government and putting in a Russian puppet regime.

Whatever the manpower available to the Russian empire, surely you recall Putin's repeated statements that Ukraine is not a real country, really a part of Russia, and should be re-united with the rest of the motherland. Maybe he won't be able to put this goal into effect right away, but that is his ultimate aim.

You seem to be saying that the Russians are merely supporting the people of Donbas in their desire for independence. If so, that should lead to political support for the Russian invasion, as well as opposition to the Ukrainians.

So is Putin just fighting to provide the Russian-speaking easterners self-determination? I doubt you are as naive as all that. Putin will take as much as he can seize. He is hardly stopping at Donbas and Crimea, unless he has to.

I want the Russian army to be defeated, to lose the war. That means I want the Ukrainian forces to win. This does not depend on my opinion of the Ukrainian government (anymore than my support for the Palestinians depends on my political support for Hamas). Revolutionary anarchists are opponents of the Ukrainian government (and of Hamas), but still in solidarity with the Ukrainian (and Palestinian) people against their imperialist oppressors.

Tim Declercq Fri, 08/08/2025 - 14:30

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

"it was a direct attack on Kyviv, with the obvious intention of overthrowing the Ukrainian government and putting in a Russian puppet regime"

It was to force a quick surrender and imposition of the desired peace terms. Peace terms which did not include regime change but did include the transfer of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, as you might recall from the negotiations that took place at the time. It almost worked too until Zelensky rejected the peace proposal on the insistence of the US and UK, at which point the Russian army redeployed to the Donbass region to fight it out. It was basically gunboat diplomacy but with tanks instead of boats.

"You seem to be saying that the Russians are merely supporting the people of Donbas in their desire for independence. If so, that should lead to political support for the Russian invasion, as well as opposition to the Ukrainians."

Of course that's not what I'm saying, the Russian state is fighting for control over resources just like every other capitalist state does. What I am saying is that the war is fought for control over the Donbass (and now some surrounding regions in the south-east too) for the simple reason that the Western regions of Ukraine are staunchly anti-Russian which would make occupation much more difficult and costly, while pretty much all of the desired resources are concentrated in the south-east and in Donbass in particular. And the Russian army simply doesn't have the manpower to take the whole of Ukraine, nor are they trying to raise that manpower.

You are the one trying to imbue the Russian state with all sorts of motives like "wanting to destroy the Ukrainian language" other than the simple desire to take control of resources, as every capitalist state does by the simple virtue of how capitalism works.

Note that even during the initial push to Kiev they never actually tried to *take* Kiev, they basically parked a bunch of tanks at the gate and then pushed a peace deal under Zelensky's nose where he would give up the Donbass region. And when that ultimately failed they redeployed and started to fight it out in Donbass.

"I want the Russian army to be defeated, to lose the war. That means I want the Ukrainian forces to win."

And who gives a crap about the population caught in the middle, right, such as in particular in Donbass? Well you certainly don't given how difficult it seems to even get you to simply talk to them even when the means to do so are spoonfed to you. And let's also ignore those tens of thousands of people from Donbass who form part of that Russian army that should be defeated and lose the war, let's definitely not let the actual complexity of the situation get in the way here.

"Revolutionary anarchists are opponents of the Ukrainian government (and of Hamas), but still in solidarity with the Ukrainian (and Palestinian) people against their imperialist oppressors."

But not in solidarity with the Donbass people whose oppressors would primarily be the Ukrainian state? You're not even consistent with your own argument. You can't claim a national liberation struggle while laying claim to regions whose populations mostly reject such "liberation" as the term for that isn't national liberation struggle but simply military conquest.

That's not to say I would agree otherwise (and I find your contention about "revolutionary anarchists..." rather arrogant as if you speak for all revolutionary anarchists, even though it's more than easy enough to find plenty of them that disagree with you) but the inconsistency in your two weights and measures here is striking. It makes me suspect that there's another reason behind your position. If the population of Kiev not wanting to live under Russian rule is a valid argument for supporting war on their side, then surely the population of Donetsk not wanting to live under Ukrainian rule is an equally valid argument for supporting war on their side?

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 08/08/2025 - 15:54

In reply to by Tim Declercq

Can't you and Wayne just agree on a basic idea that whatever liberation struggle anarchists support, it should be initiated and lead by those who are the subject of said liberation? Your debate here looks like it has more to do with that than any ethics around the self-determination of nationalities.

alex (not verified) Fri, 08/08/2025 - 20:34

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

what would their agreeing on that change about the substance of their disagreement? to my eye they are at odds precisely on the question of who is or ought to be considered the subject of liberation as you say. price seems to consider the interests of the ukrainian people as a whole to be sufficiently represented by the ukrainian state, and consequently supports the decisions of that state to acquire arms from america and israel and so on, along with other aspects of that state's strategy, such as conscription of its increasingly resistant population and empowerment of nationalists of various stripes. price paints the issue as one of conceptual confusion among anarchists on this ideological question of national liberation and ignores the past decade at least of more concrete analysis from within and without ukraine that points to the more troubling picture of the ways in which liberatory struggles have been coopted and directed both by nato-aligned forces and ostensibly independent fascist and ultra-nationalist, accelerationist forces on both sides, at many levels but particularly of interest to anarchists i would imagine at the street level, whose strategy as far as im aware has been to stoke ethnic/linguistic sectarian divisions precisely to engineer the kind of war and question of absolutes that he is similarly committed to essentializing now. he draws a parallel to palestine i suspect because he knows that there are many troubling and difficult similarities that could be addressed in more carefully considered contexts, which this is not. syria is where i would point to for parralels, but regardless, i think his problem is exactly that at some point he decided on a particular picture of the character and collective interest of the ukrainian people as a whole, which has made him unwilling to see the myriad ways in which those people have been betrayed throughout the course of the war for the sake of the grinding wheel of both the american and russian war machines. the organization of that form of myopia is called nationalism, in my opinion, and is distinct from the question of national liberation in ways that are merely and opportunistically gestured at here.

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Sat, 08/09/2025 - 15:54

In reply to by alex (not verified)

Alex writes, "price seems to consider the interests of the ukrainian people as a whole to be sufficiently represented by the ukrainian state." Where do you get this from? How many times do I have to advocate anarchist opposition to the Ukrainian state? See the Error Section above on Trotsky's view that revolutionaries oppose the state of an oppressed nation in rebellion, even while supporting the national rebellion. I state my agreement with this (while also noting my severe disagreement with other of Trotsky's views).

But my support for a nation's rebellion does not depend on having a good opinion of its leadership. And if anarchists could organize an independent guerrilla force, I would be for getting arms to it, not the state. Since that is not the case, alas, I am for the state getting arms to fight the invaders. Apparently you would prefer that the Ukrainians be crushed rather than that its state gets arms.

I am pleased however, that you can see that "nationalism... is distinct from the question of national liberation...." So many anarchists are unable to make the distinction.

alex (not verified) Sat, 08/09/2025 - 20:42

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

the problem is that the opposition to the state you call for seems to be in word alone. you represent the needs of the ukrainian people as coinciding perfectly with the strategies and priorities of the state. in your exchange with tim you said that the ukrainian state should have offered autonomy to the donbass as if the ukrainian state with its CIA supporters and fascist volunteer forces were not fighting--both conventionally and in the form of mass murderf
to stoke sectarian tensions--from 2014 to 2021 to prevent anything like that autonomy from taking root. you offer hypotheticals for what anarchists might have done and nothing but an "alas" to wipe away the glaring contradictions and pitfalls that we have seen play out when enlisting with the state is taken as the alternative. if there is a distinction between nationalism and national liberation, it ought to be demonstrated by people adopting independent positions as popular forces contradistinct to state forces, which are able to adapt to changing conditions and circumstances. i have seen plenty of indication that people in ukraine have done exactly that, as they at least try to refuse to permit their bodies and lives to be expended for the sake of a contest over territorial claims that is far from any question of their entire people being "crushed." putin's own ghoulish strategy plugs along in the meantime as he exploits the nato/american penchant for carte blanche war to liquidate his own ultranationalist enemies and undesirables including if i remember correctly HIV positive and all manner of lumpen prisoners sent to be slaughtered as advance troops.

but for me, i generally do not try to declare on behalf of anyone in ukraine what they should do. when i had an exchange with some of them on here i asked what their sense of their strategy was and how they perceived nato's war would not end up exactly where it now has. what i see is my country and its allies pumping arms into a war to attempt to exhaust or drive to collapse the economy of its enemy in tandem with sanctions, which they have failed to do. i see that it has driven the state of ukraine to become increasingly authoritarian and beholden to its worst constituents while now also accepting exactly the kind of economic chains and controls that made russian influence over the pre-2014 regimes so corrupt. this is the dynamic you label "national liberation," as if the only thing that means is that one state should win its war without any concessions to anyone other than america, at the great expense of the people subjected to it. i suggest that it does not. if theres anything i would emptily call on the people of ukraine to do, although the moment may have passed into historical fantasy, it would be to stake out an independent force across the front lines demanding an end to the fighting and autonomy, reconstruction, and reconciliation for the border regions. and that they should rid themselves of their fascist comrades and commanders who want nothing meaningfully but war and a place of privilege in the regime that conducts it.

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Sat, 08/09/2025 - 16:42

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

"whatever liberation struggle anarchists support, it should be initiated and lead by those who are the subject of said liberation." Absolutely! "The emancipation of the working class must be by the working class itself."

Ah, but what if the liberation struggle is NOT initiated and led by those who are the subject of said liberation? In fact, liberation struggles rarely *start off* being led by the oppressed themselves! People trust their previous leaders. Anarchists encourage them to rely on themselves, in conflict with the authoritarian leaders.

So workers' struggles begin under union bureaucrats; women struggles begin under liberal women; national liberation struggles under authoritarian statists. Shall we therefore wash our hands of these movements or participate in them and do our best to encourage people toward self-reliance, self-organization, and self-determination?

Without speaking for Tim, this is, I think, what is being argued about.

Tim Declercq Sat, 08/09/2025 - 19:11

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Yes it is a massive self-own by Wayne, that's exactly my point. If he had ever been involved in any actual worker's struggles he would have known that union bureaucrats don't *begin* worker's struggles but rather try to stop them. Of the at least a dozen strike actions I was involved in, every single one was begun by us as workers ourselves and the union bureaucrats only showed up to try to stop them.

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 08/09/2025 - 23:12

In reply to by Tim Declercq

it's deleuzian and y'all are reading it in opposite ways. the union bureaucrats are the first boss to overthrow while learning one's strength. the anarchists entering the union are the war machine, and the rest of the union will quickly coopt the overthrow, so they must carry on, on... if they are to be successful. until the time at which overthrows are no longer possible within that trajectory, at which point, one must step off the bandwagon, find another grouping to corrupt.

this is basic postmodern theory

lumpy (not verified) Sun, 08/10/2025 - 12:34

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

yeah exactly, he's reading it backwards, this is my point

wayne clearly means the opposite, using the rest of the statement for context

tbc, i completely disagree with 99% of wayne's position but still!

Tim Declercq Sun, 08/10/2025 - 13:16

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

The rest of his statement only confirms my interpretation, from "but what if the liberation struggle is NOT initiated and led by those who are the subject of said liberation?" clearly suggesting worker's struggle not to be initiated by the workers themselves, to "In fact, liberation struggles rarely *start off* being led by the oppressed themselves!" again suggesting the same.

Pretty much every strike action I've been involved in, across multiple workplaces, has followed the same general pattern:

1) Some event happens that upsets the workers, they talk amongst themselves and action is imminent. If a union bureaucrat realizes this they may try to already talk the workers out of it but most of the time they're still just sitting in their office somewhere away from the actual workfloor ignorant about what's going on.

2) Actual strike action breaks out, workers put down their tools and stop working, grouping up somewhere to discuss further amongst each other. At this point a union bureaucrat will certainly show up trying to stop the strike action, promising negotiations and every other means they have of stopping the strike.

3) When this fails, the union bureaucrats will change tack and try to take control of the strike, presenting themselves as the leaders and sometimes even giving media interviews to that effect. Always of course with the goal of stopping the strike from spreading any further and trying to make the strike die down again.

It is only by step 3 that they will even present themselves as the leaders of the struggle. For someone to claim that union bureaucrats *initiate* worker's struggles and that those struggles *start off* being led by them only suggests that someone to never have been actually involved in such struggles, only learning about their existence by step 3 through for example the media or something. Not once in my life have I known a single worker's struggle that was started by union bureaucrats.

And I wouldn't be surprised at all by Wayne lecturing us here about worker's struggles while never having actually been involved in one, just as he lectures us about what "the Ukrainian people want" while refusing to even talk to them.

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 08/09/2025 - 07:41

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

1- Ukrainian is not a distinct language but a dialect of Russian. The claims of it being a separate language are based on not much other than the Ruthenian origin story, but stupidly Ruthenian is only a romanized version of "Russian". Before the Rus tribes took over the Kiev region there was no such thing as Ukrainians. The place had been the stronghold of Scythians for a long time, and Ukrainians got no linguistic relationship with them.

2- You're again amalgamating the sovereignty of the Ukrainian state, with the national sovereignty of "Ukraine, as a people". This is not actually a mistake, as in the political reality, they mean the same. Unless there is a nation that existed prior to nation-state formations (imposed by the German-Austrian empires, and then by the Soviet Kremlin) the nation of Ukraine has been defined (and enforced, by the constitution of 2014) by the Ukrainian state, it was being managed and defended by it, and therefore is a nation-state. You're still pretending there's such a thing as a Ukrainian national movement, that is independent from its statist support, both from Kiev and foreign influences. Even if the organizations devoted to Ukraine may be autonomous, are well-known Neonazi unions and militias.

3- As pointed by the Alex AI (?), nationalism induces a form of political myopia on those led by it (as well as the pretend anarchists defending it as an anti-imperialist narrative). Like that of Ukrainian nationalists struggling with the reality that Ukraine is already in the hands of foreign powers, that use a "free Ukraine" in their pursuit capitalist interests, largely for the aspect of the agro and mineral industries, which is the primary cause behind this war. Russia is after these, but so equally are Western powers US and EU (formerly combined but now apparently somehow competing).

4- A Ukrainian victory -now pretty unlikely- will only mean a victory for the Western capitalist interests. Period. The Ukrainians will be left with a wasteland, and a Marshall Plan to endure for decades, which means having the remaining lands still under their properties being taken over by Western corporations. How will this help the cause of global revolutionary anarchism is beyond me, and you also fail thus far to explain it.

5- War is a profitable business. And we're finding out that this precise war has made your shares in Rheinmetall go WAY up since last year. Too bad for me... as I never invest in assets directly related to wars. After all this war is, as I predicted myself here, the perfect storm for the worst kinds of war profiteering. Why? It is without an end in sight; it never goes too far to the point of giving a victory to either side; it allows Russia to keep its establishment in place while pushing for a major increase in military expenditures, same for the EU, fulfilling Trump's dream of beefing up NATO's combined military might.... so why wouldn't a Malatesta want that!?

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 08/09/2025 - 08:37

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Yes, Yes — Zelensky was a well-known Ukrainian comedian and actor before entering politics. He starred in the TV series Servant of the People, where he played an ordinary teacher who unexpectedly becomes president after a viral anti-corruption rant. In 2019, many Ukrainians saw his real-life presidential candidacy as a protest vote against entrenched political elites and widespread corruption, reflecting frustration with the failures of previous democratic reforms. Ironically he has become embroiled in supporting the real life corruptions of the international war machine.

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 08/09/2025 - 09:12

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

we've heard you on ruthenia / kievan rus before. by this logic you are arguing that austria and germany should return a single empire? states should stick to their historic linguistic boundaries?

the only interest you might have in ai-jacketing alex would be to distract from its cogent analysis, or bc you want to erase the possibility of telling virtual from fictional. previously, people here have proven somewhat competent at distinguishing many contributors, each named "anon"

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 08/10/2025 - 07:28

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

I don't get what you're getting at here. It's a growing pattern of behaving like other ppl on the internet are living in your head (wonder why would that be!) and can follow your train of thoughts, but that clearly isn't the case.

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 08/10/2025 - 09:19

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

i should have said: if some people are alleging that a common linguistic origin is adequate justification for a single state to control a swath of territory, but when there are at least two distinct ethnolinguistic groups they should have distinct states, i would remind them that neither of those choices entails "liberation" from statehood, which apparently can only be had on a fleeting, momentary basis by small groups of face to face individuals. and then i would remind myself that most people ARE NOT seeking liberation from states, hierarchy, or even capitalism, and projecting these desires onto them is ideological colonization, where we should probably just be worrying about stuff that's closer to home, bc we can't talk about ukraine, palestine, or austria in any meaningful capacity while not residing there, and even while residing there it's a bit of a stretch to discuss a nation as a knowable entity. they seem to be more opaque and heterogenous than that.

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 08/10/2025 - 07:42

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

That there used to be a Russian Duchy of Kiev that was at the basis of the Russian empire, and that "Ruthenian" is an archaic romanized term for "Russian" is not propaganda, but simple historical facts. I'd like to have evidence that Ukrainian is a language that is distinct from Russian, as also linguistic analysis all leads to the conclusion that it's a regional dialect, That's completely not like for instance the Irish, who're talking an entirely different native language than English.

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Sat, 08/09/2025 - 15:09

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Once again we get a load of pro-Russian imperialist propaganda, repeating Putin's talking points. The centuries-long existence of Ukraine is wiped out. 70 years of Ukraine being a distinct republic in the Soviet Union is brushed aside. The vote for independence (even in the Russian-speaking east) is ignored. (Many in the east wanted greater autonomy, but not independence let alone merger with Russia.)

But I won't go over the evidence again. What matters is not what Putin thinks or Anon thinks or I think. What matters is what the people of Ukraine think. They think they are a nation separate from the Russian Empire. They are fighting to protect that nationhood. (I don't like their nationalist-capitalist-statist leadership, but that doesn't change my solidarity with the people.)

Whereas, this Anon is on the side of the imperialist invaders.

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 08/09/2025 - 21:01

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

I was expecting better arguments from you than cheap dismissals based on straw men. You disappoint me. I'd like you or anyone to challenge me on my claims, please. Or maybe you just ran out of arguments?

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Sat, 08/09/2025 - 16:15

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Whether Tim is a "benign nihilist" I cannot say. I think his is a sad case. He says that he does not believe in national self-determination (deciding on a case-by-case basis). In this he disagrees with the classical revolutionary anarchists, as I point out in Error Section (2). Starting from defense of the Russian-speaking people of the Donbas, he ends up making excuses for the Russian imperialist invasion and occupation. (I know that this is not what he claims he is doing, but just read what he has written on this thread.)

In any case, I think I have answered him (and others) sufficiently in my article, Errors (1) to (6) and in my comments on the thread.

Tim Declercq Sat, 08/09/2025 - 19:08

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

Oh and, obviously, the anon commenter was self-identifying as a "benign nihilist" and not saying that I am one. English isn't my first language, it's not even my second, but apparently I still have more reading comprehension in it than you do.

And regarding your accusation of me making excuses for the Russian invasion. A point of disagreement I have with Grisha, the founder of SAER Donetsk who I mentioned earlier, is exactly that he actually does make excuses for the entry of the Russian army in Donbass calling it "an extreme but necessary measure." Not that I'd expect you to have any notion of any of that given your patent refusal to even talk to people there, preferring to channel classical fascism in declaring (many of) the people who live there to be "invaders" (in their own homeland no less) to be fought by force.

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 08/10/2025 - 02:57

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

I am the immodest benign nihilist you mention, and oppose borders, guns (even Molotov cocktails), and Statist aggression on both sides. Therefore I am making no errors in my philosophical view of nationalist conquest and imperialism.

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 08/10/2025 - 03:22

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

Also Wayne, you seem ignorant of pure nihilist desires, and can only suggest that you familiarize yourself with the 19th century Chaikovsky Circle and their intellectual leanings.

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 08/09/2025 - 08:23

You’d think Zionism, with its rapid trajectory from “national liberation movement of the oppressed” with broad leftist support to the most widely hated, brutal nationalism that acts as a blatant cats paw for US imperialism, would have taught some people something about the essence of nationalism. Otherwise youre just kinda looking at it scratching your head and going “gee, how did this happen?!”

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 08/09/2025 - 09:39

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Yes, clearly, Zionism being bad means Palestine should remain subjugated by Israel. Just as girl boss feminism and TERFism means that women's liberation is wrong, and bureaucratic boss-friendly unions means that working class struggle is wrong. I swear I'm not a racist just because I pretend that people like Fanon and Meltzer didn't already address the problems of nationalism while still supporting national liberation. I swear I'm not a racist just because I hold national liberation struggle to a standard that I don't for any other struggle. If there's any potential problem with anything, we should do nothing, instead of dealing with it.

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Sat, 08/09/2025 - 16:05

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

This is a very good point. Zionism, originally claiming to be a liberation force for the "nation" of the Jews became an oppressor state. This is a great example of the failures of nationalism. (Although it is not true that it had "broad leftist support." Before World War II at least, almost all the left, Jewish and gentile, opposed Zionism.)

But, during the uprising of the Warsaw Ghetto against the Nazis, was it wrong for the non-Zionist organizations (mostly leftist) to form an alliance with the Zionists (both the Zionist-socialists and the right-wing almost-fascist Zionists) to fight the German occupiers? This is what they did in fact. The comparison to Ukraine is obvious.

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Sat, 08/09/2025 - 16:25

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Why do I put Jewish "nation" in quotation marks, Anon? Because I do not regard Jews throughout the world as a nation. (Obviously.) In Palestine, however, a Hebrew-speaking Israeli-Jewish nation has been created out of a section of the Jews. (Similarly, in Pakistan, Muslim Indians were formed into a Pakistani nation.)

Incidentally, the Israeli-Jewish nation should not be supported for self-determination, because (1) it already has the self-determination it wants, and (2) its self-determination, in its current form, is at the expense of another nation.

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 08/09/2025 - 16:39

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

What does "nation" mean to you then? You are saying something rather controversial and it isn't obvious, nor should it be obvious why you think Jews should not be considered a nation.

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Sat, 08/09/2025 - 16:55

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Yes, I suppose it can be controversial among some to say that U.S. Jews and French Jews are one nation, distinct from the nations of U.S.A. or France. But I don't feel like getting into this right now. Sufficient unto the day....

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 08/09/2025 - 17:07

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

Zionism was not the only version of Jewish national liberation and the others also considered Jews as a nation for numerous reasons. Are U.S. Palestinians or French Palestinians not part of a Palestinian nation? But sure, don't get into it right now even though the whole premise of national liberation is based on these details.

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 08/09/2025 - 18:49

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

" Sufficient unto the day...." AAHAAAA! using extracts of Jesus's Sermon on the Mount Sinai ( "Why worry about the sins to come in the future when the present sins are SUFFICIENT UNTO THE DAY")
How dare you bring Judeo-Christian rants into a debate about "NATION"!

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 08/10/2025 - 18:14

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Jesus was the first amoral nihilist brah, he challenged Roman imperialists, religious dogma, and patriarchal morality. LeT hE whO hAs nOt siNNed thRoW tEh FirSt stOne!

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 08/10/2025 - 14:23

Price writes "When a labor union goes on strike—but one which is 'led' by bureaucratic supporters of capitalism and the state—anarchists must not be neutral or opposed to the strike due to its rotten leadership. Instead, we support the strike, because we support the workers. We participate in the strike and raise money for the strike."

But anarchists don't really have to just blindly support any union strike just because workers are involved in it. We don't have to support a prison guards union strike. Or an arms manufacture strike. Do anarchists really need to be raising money for the SEIU when they already have tens of millions of dollars to throw at Democratic party election campaigns? And we certainly don't have to support the "right" of the union bureaucracy to get money or support any way they can. Anarchists don't have to support other anarchists becoming union bureaucrats. Or even rank-and-file unionized prison guards for that matter.

Same goes for Ukraine. Anarchists should support self-determination for Ukraine, the Donbas, and every other form of self-determination. But they don't need to support the Ukrainian state or it being armed by America and its weapons companies. Ukraine doesn't need the financial support of a tiny handful of American anarchists anyway. It's getting billions of dollars worth of weapons and other aid from NATO already. Anarchists couldn't compete even if they wanted to. Just like the SEIU or the Teamsters don't need a hundred bucks from an anarchist bake sale either.

Price seem fully disconnected from the reality of what would actually be useful for anarchists to be doing in America.

Add new comment

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

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
)
W
4
u
7
C
7
y
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.