Malatesta on War and National Self-Determination

From The Anarchist Library by Wayne Price

Lessons for Anarchists Considering the Ukrainian War

Introduction

There is a debate among anarchists in the U.S. and internationally about the proper approach to the Ukrainian war with the Russian state. Some (such as myself) express solidarity with the Ukrainian people against the invasion by the Russian Federation. (The “Ukrainian people” are mostly the working class, lower middle class, farmers, and the poor.) Others reject support for the Ukrainians. Ukraine, they point out, has a capitalist economy, has a state, is a nation, and gets aid from U.S. imperialism and its NATO allies (all of which is true).

Both sides have been known to cite the Italian anarchist, Errico Malatesta (1853-1932). He was a younger friend and comrade of Bakunin and Kropotkin, regarded as “founders” of anarchism. “Malatesta, whose sixty-year career is little known outside of Italy, stands with Michael Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin as one of the great revolutionaries of international anarchism.” (Pernicone 1993; p. 3)

Since the Russian military invaded Ukraine, I have engaged in many Internet debates with opponents of support for the Ukrainian people (not the state but the people). Some arguments have been with state socialists who are essentially on the side of the Russian invaders. Virtually no anarchists, however, have illusions in Putin’s Russia. (Nor do they have illusions in the benevolence of U.S. imperialism, unlike most liberals.) Yet many anarchists reject any support for the Ukrainian people, treating them as no better than the Russian invaders. (For my view, see Price 2022.)

A few writers have posted references to Malatesta’s opposition to World War I, claiming that this shows that a leading anarchist was opposed to “war” as such. During the First World War, most anarchists opposed both sides, but a minority supported the Allies. This minority included Kropotkin, the most respected anarchist thinker of his time! Malatesta wrote rebuttals to these pro-war anarchists. (See “Anarchists Have Forgotten Their Principles,” and “Pro- Government Anarchists,” in Malatesta 2014.)

He wrote, “[Anarchists] have always preached that the workers of all countries are brothers, and that the enemy—the ‘foreigner’—is the exploiter, whether born near us or in a far-off country.....We have always chosen our...companions-in-arms, as well as our enemies, because...of the position they occupy in the social struggle, and never for reasons of race or nationality. We have always fought against patriotism...and we were proud of being internationalists....Now...the most atrocious consequences of capitalist and State domination should indicate, even to the blind, that we were in the right....” (Malatesta 2014; p. 380)

But in the same work, he wrote, “I am not a ‘pacifist.’... The oppressed are always in a state of legitimate self- defense, and have always the right to attack the oppressors....There are wars that are necessary, holy wars, and these are wars of liberation, such as are generally ‘civil wars’—i.e., revolutions.” (same; p. 379)

In other words, all sides of a war among oppressors were to be opposed—such as the First World War between blocs of imperialist states (France-Britain- Russia-and later the U.S. vs. Germany-Austria- Turkey). But wars of the oppressed against oppressors were wars of liberation, to be supported. Nor did Malatesta limit this to class wars, such as revolutions by slaves, peasants, or modern workers. (This is sometimes expressed as “No War but Class War!”) He also included wars by oppressed nations.

Malatesta on National Liberation

In 1911, the Italian state, in competition with the Turkish empire, sought to conquer parts of north Africa. Malatesta denounced “the loot-and-pillage war that the Italian government meant to wage on the people of Libya.” (same; p. 353) But he did not condemn both sides.

“If, by some misfortune, a clash were to erupt between one people and another we stand with the people that are defending their independence.... It is the Arabs’ revolt against the Italian tyrant that is noble and holy....We hope that the Italian people...will force a withdrawal from Africa upon its government; if not, we hope the Arabs may succeed in driving it out,” (same; p. 357) He did not support the politics of the Arabs’ rulers; but he was in solidarity with the Arab people and wanted them to drive out the Italian imperialists.

Another example: In 1900, Malatesta spent a brief period in Cuba. It was not that long after the Cuban War of Independence which had driven out the Spanish colonizers. In his talks (reprinted in Malatesta 2019; pp. 218—237) he praised the Cuban anarchists who participated in the national struggle; he praised the Cuban workers who fought for their freedom; he warned of the establishment of a new state with its capitalist backers; and he warned of the U.S. imperialists taking the place of the Spanish.

“Permit me to send a greeting to the brave Cuban workers, white and black, born here or elsewhere....I have long admired the selflessness and heroism with which they fought for their country’s freedom....” (same; p. 231)

“...My comrades’ thoughts on the issue of [Cuban] independence.... Anarchists, being the enemies of all governments and claiming the right to live and grow in total freedom for all ethnic and social groups, as well as for every individual, must necessarily oppose any actual government and side with any people that fights for their freedom.” (same; p. 233)

“We anarchists want Cuba’s freedom, just as we want that of all peoples: we want true freedom though. And for this we have fought and will continue to fight.” (same; p. 234)

Malatesta was fully aware of the limitations of Cuban independence. “Cubans have managed to reap very little from the expulsion of the Spanish government because the Spanish capitalists who exploit them remain here...[and] they remain subject to other capitalists, Cubans [and] Americans....” (same; p. 233) He warned that a new, capitalist, state was being formed, under the protection of the U.S.

Even within those limitations, he felt that the struggle had not been in vain. “There is something, though, that the Cubans have achieved, and that is the awareness that, having managed to drive Spanish rule out of Cuba by force, they will obtain by force whatever they aim for.” (same; p. 226) That is, they learned the possibility of revolution. The fight for full freedom in Cuba was not over. “The struggle will have only just begun and it will be necessary to continue it, unrelenting and without mercy, against every government and every exploiter.” (same; p.236)

Malatesta had an approach, a method of organizing. (See Price 2019.) Calling himself a “revolutionary anarchist-socialist,” he advocated that anarchists should participate in every popular movement for improving people’s lives, no matter how limited. At the same time, he advocated that revolutionary anarchists who agreed with each other should organize themselves to promote anarchism as a program and a vision within broader movements. He advocated that anarchists participate in unions, union-organizing, and strikes. But he opposed dissolving the anarchist movement into the labor movement (as he believed some anarcho- syndicalists proposed). Instead he wanted anarchist groups to be inside and outside the unions.

Similarly, he wanted Italian anarchists to participate in the anti-monarchist movement. He proposed to ally with the left wing of the movement, which was in favor of a popular revolution to overthrow the archaic Italian king. Malatesta was prepared to form a coalition with social democrats (mostly Marxists) who hoped to replace the king with an elected parliament, in which they would gradually move toward state socialism. Also with radical republicans, who just wanted to create a parliamentary democracy. In the course of a popular revolution, he hoped that the anarchists would be able to take it further than their allies originally wanted.

“By taking part in the [anti-monarchist] insurrection...and playing as large a part as we can, we would earn the sympathy of the risen people and would be in a position to push things as far as possible....We must cooperate with the republicans, the democratic socialists, and any other anti-monarchist party to bring down the monarchy; but we must do so as anarchists, in the interests of anarchy, without disbanding our forces or mixing them in with others’ forces and without making any commitment beyond cooperation on military action,” (same; pp. 161-2) Italian anarchists and syndicalists attempted to carry out this approach in the fight against the rise of Fascism.

Malatesta’s method was summarized by a younger revolutionary, Eugenio Pellaco: “Wherever the people are to be found, that is where the anarchist must be, ready to propagandize and fight....” (Pernicone 1993; p. 273)

Malatesta vs. Lenin on National Self-Determination

Malatesta’s views on national self-determination (or wars of national liberation) can be put in a broader context. A great many anarchists regard a recognition of the reality that nations exist—and that some are oppressed by others—is the same as “nationalism.” But national oppression is an objective problem (the denial of a people’s freedom to chose their own economic and political society). “Nationalism” is one program for dealing with the problem.

Anarchists reject the nationalist program. It calls for the unity of all classes within the nation, under the leadership of capitalist rulers, establishing a state, and denying the common interests of the workers of the oppressed nation with workers in other countries. Nor does it work. Even if the oppressed nation wins its political independence, it will still be dominated by the world market which is ruled by the big capitalist economies (imperialism). Politically it will still be dominated by the big states with their huge military forces. Anarchist-socialists believe that the only final solution to national oppression (that is, achieving national liberation) is through an international revolution of the world’s working class and all oppressed people, establishing world-wide anarchy. Not the same as nationalism.

Many anarchists ignorantly believe that “national self-determination” is a Leninist concept. Actually it is one of the basic bourgeois-democratic demands raised in the great bourgeois-democratic revolutions of Britain (1640), the U.S. (1776), France (1789), and others. These included freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of religion, as well as land to those who use it, the right to bear arms, habeus corpus, the election of officials, no discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, nationality, and so on. Of course, the capitalist class has never upheld its own democratic program in any consistent way; the implementation of these demands has always depended on the struggles of the exploited and oppressed against the ruling classes.

Lenin’s idea was for his party to do more than fight for improved workers’ wages and working conditions. It should defend the bourgeois-democratic rights of all oppressed, no matter how close or distant to the workers’ class struggle. This included big groups such as the peasants, or women—and nations oppressed by the Czarist empire or by other imperialisms. He also advocated supporting smaller groups such as censored writers, conscripted soldiers, religious minorities, etc.

The problem with Lenin’s program was not that it was too democratic!! The problem was that its democracy was only instrumental. Its aim was to get his party into centralized state power. Lenin was for land to the peasants, as a step toward the merger into large-scale state farms—supposedly voluntary, although that is not how Stalin or Mao carried it out. Similarly, if the socialists in the imperialist country supported the rights of workers in an oppressed country, then supposedly these workers would eventually trust the socialists and be willing to voluntarily merge—again, not how it worked out in practice (as in Ukraine).

By supporting national self-determination, Lenin hoped to eventually get to a merged, homogenized, and centralized one-world state—a true monstrosity. Anarchists are also internationalists, seeking the end of national states. But they are also decentralists and pluralists, regionalists and federalists. They work toward a world of many cultures, interacting through federations and networks—with no country dominating any other. This is the fundamental basis of anarchist support for national self-determination.

Ukraine

What light do Malatesta’s views cast on the Ukrainian war? Certainly he would oppose an inter-imperialist war between Russia and the U.S.A. and its NATO allies—if it ever got to that—just as he denounced World War I. The war between the Russian state and the people of Ukraine is another matter. Russia is an imperialist aggressor. Ukraine is a weak, poor, and non-imperialist country.

As Malatesta shows, it is a distortion to say that real anarchists do not support oppressed peoples (nations, countries) against imperial oppressors. It is true that the Ukrainian people are not anarchists or socialists; they accept their state and capitalism. Does that mean that anarchists should punish them by refusing to defend them when attacked by a strong enemy which massacres their people and smashes their cities?

It is true that the Ukrainians have taken arms from the only source available, namely Western imperialists. This does not change the basic nature of the war—but the Ukrainians should be careful and not trust the U.S. Its government might betray them easily if its leaders thought it was worth it. (The Cubans got aid against Spain from the U.S. In itself this was not unprincipled. Their mistake was to not prepare to resist the U.S. as the war ended.)

As far as I can tell, Ukrainian anarchists have in fact followed Malatesta’s approach. Virtually the whole country has risen up to oppose the invasion. There is voluntary organizing throughout the nation, both military and providing social services, despite chaos and destruction. Ukrainian anarchists have not made fools of themselves by opposing the resistance of the people. Instead they have merged with the broader movement of Ukrainians. Some have provided non-military services through mutual aid groups, such as food distribution. Others have formed a military unit composed of anarchists and anti-fascists. Although they have a good deal of autonomy, they coordinate with the Territorial Defense Forces.

Some anarchists in other countries have criticized them for cooperating with the state. Of course it would be better if they could form a large scale anarchist militia or guerrilla force. But given the limitations of the anarchist groupings, this seems a reasonable tactic for now. Following Malatesta’s approach, participation in the nation-wide effort to beat back the Russian invaders may make it possible for anarchists to have a wider influence in the future Ukraine.

References

Malatesta, Errico (2019) (Davide Turcato, Ed.) (Paul Sharkey, Trans.). Malatesta in America 1899—1900. The Complete Works of Errico Malatesta; Vol. IV. Chico CA: AK Press.

Malatesta, Errico (2014) (Davide Turcato, Ed.) (Paul Sharkey, Trans.). The Method of Freedom; An Errico Malatesta Reader. Oakland CA: AK Press. Pernicone, Nunzio (1993). Italian Anarchism, 1864— 1892. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Price, Wayne (2022). “Defend Ukraine! Revolutionary Opposition to Russian and U.S. Imperialism!” https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32559?search_text=Wayne+Price

Price, Wayne (2019). “The Revolutionary Anarchist-Socialism of Errico Malatesta” https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31632


Black Flag Anarchist Review

Comments

anon (not verified) Thu, 07/28/2022 - 19:29

“Does that mean that anarchists should punish them by refusing to defend them when attacked by a strong enemy which massacres their people and smashes their cities?”

How could a tiny, fringe political movement “punish” Ukraine by withholding their thimbleful of available support? This is a crazy statement imo. The most powerful western states are supporting Ukraine. There’s no reason for anarchists to do so besides clout chasing, nor to distinguish people from state. It’s the same problem as with anarchist social services here - mutual aid is a survival tactic, nothing inherently subversive to it. Especially if “virtually the whole country” is united (it’s not really)- for the same reason it’s not “making fools of themselves” that local anarchists would risk, but more likely being brutalized and tied to poles. It’s western anarchists who are making fools of themselves.

“the reality that nations exist”- excuse me, can you elaborate on this please. It seems to be very important to your overall argument. What is a nation and in what way does it exist? Please explain this with particular relevance to Ukraine. Why did ethnic Russian minorities not have the self-determination to leave the state in 204, or after 2019, to even print their own newspapers- does this count as national oppression?

While Malatesta allied with social democrats in a revolutionary anti-monarchist movement with strong left-wing elements, this is not at all directly comparable to nationalistic resistance to a military offensive. It’d be better to compare his expedition to fight the British in Egypt, which was an utter failure. Afaict he never went anywhere near Cuba or Libya and I really wonder why you even bother to quote him, let alone shape this essay around him- other than a dearth of anarchist citations compatible with your position.

“Ukrainians should be careful and not trust the U.S. Its government might betray them easily if its leaders thought it was worth it.” The US is not on Ukraine’s side and never was. I guess you didn’t pay attention to the first trump impeachment- the Ukraine connection, though central, was also easy to miss when every major news outlet editorialized that, btw, of course we must arm the Ukrainians because Putin is our enemy. Now some anarchists are falling for the line pushed in the same sources, that Russians are soooo insane and brainwashed to feel threatened by the US/NATO, for whom Ukraine is only the latest in a long line of bloody “interventions”. Have some common sense, please!

Wayne Price (not verified) Sat, 07/30/2022 - 17:05

In reply to by anon (not verified)

(1) How can a few anarchists "punish" the Ukrainian people? By participating in the international discussion and trying to undermine the Ukrainian's defense against Russian imperial aggression. How can anarchists support the Ukrainian people's resistance to Russia? Reports (on this website) mostly say that Ukrainian anarchists participate in the Ukrainian struggle, from distributing food and medicine to joining in military combat. And other European anarchists have found ways to support the Ukrainians.

(2) Once again an anarchist challenges me to prove that "nations exist." Perhaps there really is no France, no United States, No Russia, No Ukraine, no China, no South Africa? Must I prove that these nations (countries, peoples) exist? Of course, their existence has bee created through historical and cultural factors, boundaries are permeable, and languages evolve. That does not deny that nations exist.

(3)Malatesta " never went anywhere near Cuba or Libya" Except that he gave his talks about the Cuban war while visiting Cuba (as I said) and--in regard to the Libyan-Italian war--lived in Italy.

anon (not verified) Sat, 07/30/2022 - 19:17

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

1. this is still just stupid, sorry. I’m not punishing Ukraine. I’m raising my tiny little voice here and there against my government’s foreign interventions. I’m in the US and I can’t speak for what I would do if I was Ukrainian. I also can’t be expected to speak for what “European anarchists” are doing.

2. You haven’t demonstrated that you understand any difference between nations and nation-states, which is so basic that I’m not sure what the point is of even trying to talk to you about it. You also didn’t read me too well, I didn’t “ask you to prove nations exist” I asked you to define nations. Your answer, apparently: they are states.

3. Sorry I missed the Cuba part, but I would hope Malatesta challenging his government’s military adventures abroad could inspire you to think critically about the US and its military involvement in Eastern Europe. I’m starting to wonder if you’re just getting a righteous high from defending an “oppressed nation” in much the way so many liberal hawks are right now too.

anon (not verified) Sat, 07/30/2022 - 19:40

In reply to by anon (not verified)

The question of what’s a nation is extremely salient to Ukraine, what’s happening there now, and why we should not be taking sides in what even you should be able to recognize as an inter-imperialist conflict.

As in France or Italy, many dialects of Russian-type languages have been spoken for centuries in a region generally held together by structures of state, religion, culture and economy. Ukrainian nationalism is rarely heard of before the 20th century, and since then inextricably interlinked with far-right and fascist politics. The 21st c. revival in same has been massively backed by western fascists as well as major western powers, especially after 2014. Wayne, not all Ukrainians are nazis, but there are way more fascists there now than anarchists, maybe you would understand this if you had read anarchist testimonies from the Maidan, or almost any political news from Ukr. since then. Since the civil war began in Donbas fascists from Europe and the US have flocked to a country where nazi collaborators are openly celebrated as national heroes and where they have received training and experience in modern warfare, killing people now widely referred to as “orks”. It’s like a fascist isis, I’m genuinely terrified what these guys will be up to when they leave the war zone, and you should be too. I don’t really have time to get into all the political changes in Ukraine in the past decade but you should really learn something about it and stop making slogany excuses and inept comparisons. Maybe then you could explain the scorched earth policies pursued against Russian speakers, another point you ignored, or why Azov Battalion with their SS symbol are now hailed as national heroes. It’s an artificial, western backed attempt to force the creation of a Ukrainian nationalism as something contrary and opposed to Russia. We should see in it all the signs and symptoms of fascism as it faces us in our own communities and not just romanticize it because it’s far away and because we’re told that the other side is worse. It’s like the US backing the contras and mujahideen in the 80s. Maybe those were good, in your opinion, because they were “against Russian imperialism” too?

anon (not verified) Thu, 07/28/2022 - 20:00

OMG the ignorance continues from a,,,,,,,,,I'm sorry, I can't think of a word to describe Wayne's activity. Crypto-nationalistic or psuedo-anarchist or libertarian socialist.
I'll go for the latter, its less offensive, I mean, Wayne's intentions are good, its only that he cannot grasp the shallowness of his outcomes, how the social paradigm in Ukraine will not change regardless of either side winning, whatever "winning" means, or is it some se timental national pride that drives people to slaughtering the tribe living in the next valley,,,,,,things haven't changed much in 5,000 years, pity, national pride, ethnic honor, us vs them, tit for tat, nah nah nahnah nah I beat
you, So backwards,

anon (not verified) Thu, 07/28/2022 - 20:19

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I’m going to go with pseudo-anarchist, since to give the devil his due, most socialists- even dsa- have criticized western support for the war. Anarcho-liberal may be a better way to put it, an anarchist who is as idealistic/moralistic about politics, and as unreflectively attuned to msm narratives, as your average liberal.( This is one of socialists’ favorite stereotypes about anarchists btw.)

anon (not verified) Thu, 07/28/2022 - 21:51

thank Bakunin there are other actual principled anarchists who understand that Wayne's constant shit narrative about national self-determination, oppressed nations, and justified war is a steaming pile of dog shit. I'm done trying to argue that the nature of imperialism has changed since Lenin latched onto it as a great enemy, that Malatesta was involved in anti-colonial struggles against monarchist expansionism rather than promoting "national self-determination" (which even Woodrow Wilson promoted before Lenin latched onto that phrase too). like most leftists, Wayne is convinced he has history on his side, and there are no mistakes in his grand narrative. I'm done with pointing out his inconsistencies, total lack of good faith, logical fallacies, and general incoherence. I'm glad others are working on it. keep at it, friends.

Wayne Price (not verified) Sat, 07/30/2022 - 17:14

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Anon 21:51, as usual, does not deny that anarchists (such as Malatesta) have long opposed imperialism, colonialism, and national oppression. But insists that things have changed so it is wrong for anarchists today to oppose imperialism, neo-colonialism, and national oppression. Just how things have changed is never quite made clear. Certainly the Ukrainians and the Palestinians might still feel that imperialism, neo-colonialism, and national oppression are alive and well.

This writer swore to never stop pointing out my many errors and betrayals of anarchism. Now they are giving up. Such a lack of revolutionary spirit.

anon (not verified) Sat, 07/30/2022 - 18:03

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

that commenter is giving up precisely because of what you just wrote about them. nowhere did they say that imperialism, colonialism, and national oppression no longer exist. you have once again used the straw man logical fallacy. nobody has said that anarchists shouldn't oppose those things -- but people have consistently said that the way you prescribe for fighting against them is obsolete.
the lack of revolutionary spirit rests squarely with you, who cannot comprehend disagreement without insisting that other people are craven (because who would be so craven as to support imperialism?) rather than mistaken. other commenters have pointed out all the fallacies behind your retrograde nationalism and pro-war stance, but you just brush them off, pretending that we are all still living in 1913 or 1922 and that the imperial powers grinding away with Ukrainians getting stuck in the middle are just trying to mind their own business of national self-determination. you are so confused Wayne, that it's impossible to conduct any kind of reasonable conversation with you. your rhetorical style was obviously honed when you were a Trot; that's most likely why 21:51 gave up.

anon (not verified) Sat, 07/30/2022 - 19:05

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

Wayne, I’ll make this real simple: explain what a nation is in a way that is totally disconnected from nationalism and the history of nation-states. You keep saying nations are real things and this seems to form a crucial point in your argument, if you’re making an argument and not just incoherently cheerleading for the current thing. Critique of the concept of nationhood, nations as static or essential objects or identities, seems like it should be a key element of any anarchist thinker's toolbox.

Additionally if you can, explain why Russia getting involved in a bloody civil war in its front yard is more imperialist than the US and its allies having bought and paid for the war almost in its entirety. It seems like anyone on the left should have no problem pointing out the issue here, but your inexplicable affection for Ukrainian nationalism seems to be a stumbling block here.

I can’t believe I need to point this out but Ukrainian are not Palestinians. That is a disingenuous and frankly gross comparison for almost too many reasons to list, but it suggests you don’t know a lot about Palestine either. Anyway, it’s also super unnecessary. If you can’t make a point without hyperbolic appeals to emotionalism &/or general leftist groupthink, you might not have a point.

anon (not verified) Sat, 07/30/2022 - 19:52

In reply to by anon (not verified)

The intermingling of Russian and Ukrainian culture is an important thing often missed here too, a country where so many people are from bilingual families and communities and where people were used to traveling back and forth to live, work and study for 20 years after the ussr fell.

You want to know what I think a nation is, Wayne? It’s this, a war that rips people apart and sorts them into distinct, hard and fast categories. A national language is just a dialect with a national army behind it. As in Yugoslavia (among many other tragic examples) even people who speak virtually the same language, live in the same places, and live much the same can be persuaded by political actors and driven by difficult times to believe that the others are not just really different, but actually not human. That’s nationalism and that’s why every anarchist should be disgusted by it. Nation-states were necessary to the construction of capitalism. A future without wars and borders is also one without nations. (Note: the Slavic word for nation, narod, also refers etymologically to birth (natal) and upholding it therefore also has an inherent tinge of “race realism”)

anon (not verified) Sat, 07/30/2022 - 20:51

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Another example is the Rwandan genocide. There wasn't even a different language there, and the homicidal demonization happened anyway. Fuck nationalism. All of it.

anon (not verified) Sun, 07/31/2022 - 08:58

In reply to by anon (not verified)

True that. The bad optics of anarcho-celebs like Wayne and Ziq leads to places like this... the fact that Ukraine has been in a process of nation-building since the '90s, that turned violent since 2014, and that this nationalist imperative - even not taking the Neonazis and other ultranationalists into account - is dividing and bringing people of common history all against each other. NATO has been exceptionally good at this.

anon (not verified) Sun, 07/31/2022 - 09:24

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I'm only seeing Nazis and other ultranational fanatics to be able to make the bold -and demented- claim that nations are real. Only among native people of some non-White cultures, like in Black Africa or Native Americans you can have nations that aren't the product of political constructs, but an old notion of ethnic groupings tied to a more or less definite piece of land.

This doesn't apply to Ukrainians, who while being an ethnic group that's always been in the region, has never had a territory such as pre-2014 Ukraine assigned to them. Same for the ever blurry Palestinian Arabs, who while having a clear historical existence dating at least 3000 years back in the area known as the Middle-East, never had any precisely defined territory outside of, well, those given to them by the Roman and British Empires (yea... uh oh). But leaving aside this latter controversial statement, the current national territory of Ukraine used to be an ever-changing territory that both Rus and Ukies lived on for a very long time. Kiev was founded and developed by Rus Vikings, for instance.

When you start putting this national abstraction between people, this is where the State starts to hurt, and it'll rear its authoritarian head regardless on which side of an imperialist war you are.

anon (not verified) Sun, 07/31/2022 - 09:27

In reply to by anon (not verified)

has never had a territory such as pre-2014 Ukraine assigned to them"

At least before such generous piece of land was handed to them by the Soviet Union in the '70s, then maintained after the fall of the Soviet Union as per an agreement with Russia.

Wayne Price (not verified) Sun, 07/31/2022 - 17:12

Given the limited space available in postings on the Comments list, it is not surprising that remarks are so limited. Even so, it is remarkable how nasty and personal many remarks are: “This is still just stupid.” “the ignorance continues … he cannot grasp the shallowness of his outcomes” “pseudo-anarchist,” “Wayne's constant shit narrative…his inconsistencies, total lack of good faith, logical fallacies, and general incoherence.” Do these writers think they are carrying on a discussion or just showing what big egos they have?

However, “WAYNE'S BEING AS CLOSE TO NAZISM AS THE LEFT CAN GET…” —this is beneath contempt and not worth a reply.

Still some remarks are intelligent arguments (see Anon 19:40; 19:05; etc.) For example, the later challenges me to “explain what a nation is in a way that is totally disconnected from nationalism and the history of nation-states.” I can’t. Not *totally disconnected.* Not *totally.*

Clearly there is overlap between the cultural and historical sense of nationhood (a feeling for the land, pride in historical contributions of one’s country to world culture, recognition of revolutionary and progressive aspects of a nation’s history) as contrasted to reactionary aspects of one’s history and culture (racism, conquest and domination of other peoples, division between a ruthless ruling class and the exploited workers, patriarchy, etc.).

None of this means that “nations” (a certain grouping of people, self-identified) are (*totally*) the same as “nationalism” (the unity of oppressed and oppressors within a nation, as a program for greater national independence). To say that nations have been created by historical processes is not to deny that they exist. There is an Egypt as there is a Spain, there is a United States as there is a Mexico. What world do you live in? Sure, if the South had won the Civil War (“God” forbid!) the structure and nature of the USA would have been quite different. But that does not deny that the USA exists today, dominating the world.

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
%
@
M
V
Q
%
x
w
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.