💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anonymous-anarchism-and-nationalism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:21:58. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Anarchism and Nationalism
Author: Anonymous
Date: 1970
Language: en
Topics: Freedom, nationalism, national liberation
Source: Retrieved on 15 June 2011 from http://www.anarchyisorder.org/CD%234/TXT-versions/Freedom%20-%20Anarchism%20and%20nationalism.txt
Notes: This article first appeared in Freedom on 21st February 1970 and has been reprinted several times.

Anonymous

Anarchism and Nationalism

Superficially, anarchism is a movement of the Left but this is not

strictly so, since it implies being part of the political spectrum.

Anarchists reject this, asserting that there is more in common between

Right and Left political parties (like the struggle for power) than

between even extreme Left political groups and the anarchists. History

has shown us that no matter how ‘Left’ a party is when it starts off,

the achievement of power brings it round to the Right, for every

government wants to maintain the status quo; wants to extend the control

it has over the people, and isn’t this what the Right really means?

Certain right-wing attitudes are specifically rejected by left-wing

parties — until they become useful in the power game. ‘Divide and Rule’,

for example, can be played with many variations, from wage differentials

to religious and colour prejudice, and although nationalism is

intellectually rejected by the political Left, they quite shamelessly

use what are quaintly called ‘National Liberation Movements’ when it

suits their political ambitions — and a ‘Left’ party in power knows very

well the usefulness of nationalism and indeed patriotism as a weapon of

government. Even if this were not deliberate cunning on the part of a

so-called ‘revolutionary government’, the logic of authoritarianism

leads to it.

Even allowing for soviets or workers’ councils, the actual operation of

state power cannot be carried out by the entire population. This demands

the workers’ own revolutionary party sitting at the top doing the actual

governing, like suppressing all opposition in the name of the revolution

and ensuring internal security by the perpetual policing of the

population in its own interests to effect the immediate spotting of any

deviationary elements. At the same time as this defence of the

revolution is strenuously maintained, the population also has to be kept

safe from external aggression, an efficient army, navy and air force is

kept at the ready and since a workers’ state is the most democratic

state, a form of conscription becomes desirable to ensure that everyone

does his bit.

This is really no sacrifice since the state belongs to everyone and

everyone belongs to the state, but to keep the people enthusiastic for

service to the state, a leader comes forward to give every citizen

someone to identify with on a personal level. In order to provide the

cosy feeling of collective security, of belonging to the corporate body

around him, the idea of the nation is encouraged and patriotism becomes

a virtue once again — if, indeed, it ever fell out of favour.

Thus the service of the revolution achieved through authoritarian means

brings the wheel full circle. The ideologies and justifications for lack

of freedom — indeed for ruthless totalitarian control of the entire

country — will differ from those of the old regime, but in fact the

institutions and the realities of life are exactly the same, if not

worse.

For this reason anarchists do not enthuse about revolutions which are

mounted in order to bring to power another set of governors. Our

interpretation above has been of a so-called revolutionary change in

society; how much less, then, can we enthuse about changes which do not

even pretend to be revolutionary from the start?

Into this category fail the movements for national liberation which are

frankly nationalistic and call for opposition against a ruling or

occupying power purely on xenophobic grounds. Although revolutionary

means may be used in such a struggle, it has no more to do with social

revolution as the anarchist sees it than the xenophobia of a Hitler or

an Enoch Powell. Pathetic examples of this are to be found in Wales and

Scotland. In fact — and here is where the situation seems to get

confused — ‘movements for national liberation’ in the trouble spots of

the world today tend to give a social revolutionary veneer to their

claims, in order to get support from the Communist states. The classic

example of this was in Egypt, where a successful anti-colonial struggle

established a nationalistic, military regime (much like the Greek

colonels!) with the aid of Russian arms and technology. By using devices

like nationalisation and land reform, the veneer of socialism was

applied — but, in spite of Russian ‘friendship’, the Communist Party is

banned and Egyptian Communists are in prison. Meanwhile rabid

nationalism was whipped up, patriotism by the imperial pint kept on the

boil, but nothing prospers like the state and the international arms

merchants. But your authoritarian left — the Trotskyists and the

Communist Party — supported the new Egyptian state! Anarchists do not

play this political game. We are not jockeying for position all the time

and trying to further one or other of the power blocs that divide the

world and its workers. We are truly international and oppose all those

forces which divide people. Hence it is quite logical for anarchists to

oppose an imperial power and the indigenous politicians who lead

national resistance. For example, in condemning the Russian military

occupation of Czechoslovakia, we did not thereby support the Dubcek

Communist state which was in conflict with the Kosygin Communist state,

in the sense that we wanted to see Dubcek remain in power. We supported

the Czech people and their right to choose — even though choosing Dubcek

(as the lesser evil!) — because this is a right that all people must

have, and also because they were using revolutionary means (if only

because there were no others) and were learning how to do things for

themselves. In the event, what opposition there was came from the people

and not from Dubcek. Our attitude was the same on Vietnam (against US

imperialism, but not for the Vietcong); Cuba (against Batista, not for

Castro), Black Power (the answer to white racism is not black racism!),

the American Revolution of 1776 (to hell with George III and the

American state that followed him!); and all Arab, Jewish, Indian,

African nationalisms.

The answer to imperialism is not nationalism and reactionary regimes —

it is international social revolution, destroying all national,

religious, racial barriers. We have learnt from history!