1. Introduction - Alex Alder and Bill Beech

The Floodgates of Anarchy - Stuart Christie & Albert Meltzer

The struggle for class and self-liberation is not to be compared with national conflicts. It is the function of the impersonal State to squander lives in war, or of a superior class to regard lesser humans as expendable; thus any war of the nation-state must in itself be in the nature of an atrocity. [...] [C]ompared with other conflicts, social liberation is the most difficult of all to achieve, beside which national liberation is a divertissement. For class struggle implies not merely collective action but the breaking down of that sequence of events ingrained in our society as command-and-obey. Any form of social protest may be useful as an attempt to destroy this sequence, which saps the lifeblood of mankind and makes it possible for the few to govern the many.

Why we wrote this book

In the last three years we have been participants in the ongoing split within the anarchist movement in the UK, and internationally, surrounding the war in Ukraine. Our position and that of the other side has been clarified, the gulf between us remains deeper than ever. It will shape what is to come.

For us, the siding with the NATO bloc and the British state is a betrayal of anarchist, socialist, working class politics. Anywhere Boris Johnson and the NATO Secretary General lead, should be a poisoned path, that much should be obvious. However, many avatars are presented to justify our acquiescence and foment our mobilisation for this war: the spectre of unprovoked Russian aggression, the Ukrainian people’s anti-colonial struggle, anarchist battalions, crowdfunders for drones and snipers, trans spokespeople, progressivism, anti-fascism, liberty, the soul of humanity. In other words, it’s a war like any other – a ruling class racket in which we are sent a gilded invitation to the table, when we are actually on the menu. Let’s try to give the devil his due and assume that there are benefits to a tactical alliance with the ruling class - to bolster anarchist forces or increase space for manoeuvre. But looking at the results of the last three years, the other side has nothing to show for hedging their bets on liberal militarism. It is a dead-end, literally and metaphorically, as the number of dead anarchists rises, all those who were blindsided into seeing the Donbas as the Catalonia of our age.

The purpose of this volume isn’t to re-litigate debates of the past three years. Instead, we want to reflect on the place of anarchism in anti-militarism historically, and at the present moment. There is an urgency to question and undermine militarism, in the countries of the imperial core (we can call it Natostan or the UK/US/EU/NATO axis). We also want to take stock and leave a trace for the historical record.

The war in Ukraine and the wider war in Western Asia (or North Africa, as the Middle East is also known) can be seen as part of the same moment – the first multipolar conflicts in over a hundred years. Britain, strutting its atrophied Imperial muscles, is fully involved in both. The wars are fought through proxies, they have raised the stakes globally and have retailored the world order. The countries of the imperial core have smashed up their precious ‘rules-based order’ in their loyalty to the exterminationist project of Zionism. In Ukraine, WWII is finally ending – the old threat of war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO has finally come to pass and Russia is winning decisively: militarily, economically, industrially. The reckoning will come, but it won’t come from those who have shown themselves to be the dupes of their ruling class. They have joined in with the propaganda onslaught on the populations of the imperial core, laundering endless lies about Russians taking chips out of washing machines, about an imminent resurrection of the Soviet Empire, about the US and EU’s principled stand in this war, which they had no role in starting. This massive tissue of lies can no longer hide a stinking mound of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy to see the Canadian Parliament, led by Zelensky (the glorified ‘Jewish president’ of Ukraine), give a standing ovation to a bona-fide Waffen-SS Nazi Yaroslav Hunka. Hypocrisy to see the leaders of NATO countries all jostle for a handshake and embrace with Al-Julani, the new autocrat of Syria, who barely had time to wash the blood off these head-chopping hands as an Al-Qaeda and ISIS leader. These men are the sharp blades of empire, useful and deadly, and like all proxies, expendable. Just like NATO’s anarchists.

The case of the war in Ukraine is particularly important, since it is the first war which has successfully split the anarchist movement in many decades. As the NATO/EU war with Russia transforms into another ‘forever war’, there is a real danger that a section of the anarchist movement will continue to support the ruling class policies, albeit adorned in anarchist folklore. This book is an attempt to strengthen the anti-militarist tradition within anarchism and open up a path away from this split and onto firm ground focussed on class and self-liberation. We hope that our interventions in this debate would help to bring about an unequivocal break with NATO alignment, and a move towards the basis of theoretical clarity on which practical anti-militarist activity can be organised.

It was Proudhon who apparently used the word ‘militarism’ first, in his book War and Peace - On the Principle and Constitution of the Rights of Peoples (1861). And even though weapons and war have evolved to such an extent that they have the very real potential to end all human life on earth, our understanding of militarism remains similar to that in the 19th century. It is the collapse of social, political and economic values into military ones, the drive to war, and the prevailing notion that safety comes through armament and military readiness. Militarism is inseparable from the state, from nationalism, and from military discipline, which is quintessentially hierarchical and which lays a total claim on bodies for soldiery. The fumes of militarism are chauvinism and patriarchy. Militarism often comes with fantasies of racial and national unity and the racial and cultural othering of the adversary and enemy states. We don’t need to look for military dictatorships to find the hallmarks of militarism in all class-based societies. Its ancient origins are maintained by age-old techniques of manly discipline, the invocation of patriotism and defence of the homeland, political and cultural rhetoric – nowadays pumped out via mass media and social media. Social media, in particular, are turbocharged instruments of militarism, with their instant and pervasive claims to displays of loyalty and conformity, coupled with the rule by fear of cancellation and shunning.

This book looks at why and how we resist militarism, through current and historical examples. As we get into the specifics, we would like you to keep in mind that the main how and why of anti-militarism isn’t reactive or defensive – instead it is the rich creative force of the anarchist tradition. This tradition is made up of all the myriad forms of self-organisation and self-reliance. All the ways we do DIY and mutual aid in an anti-parliamentary context, all of our autonomous and libertarian collectives, organisations and institutions. These traditions spring up from where we stand when we meet state, capitalist or imperial forms of exploitation and subjugation. That is why they are varied and run deep into indigenous cultures, diasporic communities, one’s sex or racialised existence, the self-worth of craftspeople. We can therefore say that the lifeblood of anarchism is by its nature anti-militarist, since all of our efforts are a denial and overthrow of militarism.

Anarchists catch war fever

Anarchists in England, Scotland, and Wales have not had to think too deeply about militarism for a long time (it is rather a different case for those in Northern Ireland). When the British Armed Forces joined US-led coalitions to invade Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003, anarchists could agree on opposing these wars, joining mass protests and analysing the imperialist dynamics behind the rhetoric of counter-terrorism and humanitarian intervention. Anarchists were not tempted to support the Taliban or the Ba’athist regime on the basis of anti-imperialism, self-defence, or national self-determination. Nor did they echo propaganda about bringing democracy to the people of the region by overthrowing dictators with military might. Things became more complicated, however, with the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Alongside the expected statements against war from the likes of the International of Anarchist Federations (IAF) and the International Workers Association (IWA), there appeared a surge of support for Ukrainian national defence. The pivotal factor was the decision of a network of Ukrainian anarchists, anti-fascists, and other ‘anti-authoritarians’ to collectively join the Territorial Defence Forces of the Ukrainian state, initially organised in their own ‘platoon’ and sharing a political manifesto. Their calls for solidarity from anarchists abroad to donate, enlist, or otherwise support the war effort was the motivating factor for many anarchists in Britain (and across Europe and North America) to set aside their anti-militarism.

Their publicly visible organisation and voice was, at first, primarily the Resistance Committee, whose manifesto states that:

Today the epicenter of the resistance against enslavement is here [in Ukraine]. The struggle of Ukrainians gives hope for liberation to everyone oppressed by Putinism. […] Today’s war in Ukraine is the continuation of the struggle for peoples’ freedom from all authoritarianism. Residents of Ukraine as well as people from many other countries fight together for the liberties and rights which were gained by the ages of popular struggle and the effort of revolutionaries. And even though today the Ukrainian state is on stage, the resistance against the invasion is being waged by the mass popular movement.1

They note that their task is ‘to unite efforts of fighters against authoritarianism for the sake of effective struggle for our ideals and values […] to protect the freedoms which already exist and to contribute to their extension.’ In their defence of freedom, ‘we are the enemies of imperial rule, which is present now in Ukraine by the brutal Putinist army’ and therefore ‘we should put an end to Putin’s regime’. They make the reservation that ‘If the Ukrainian state today participate in this struggle it doesn’t mean that we became its supporters.’ In regards to institutional militarism, they set out some aims to achieve:

Common access to the means of self-defence as a condition of freedom and opportunity to protect oneself from aggressors. Simplification of access to arms. Integration of education and military industry development based on latest technologies. The development of educational programs able to teach specialists who will strengthen the country’s capacity for defence. Opportunity to gain military skills in the ranks of Territorial Defence, minimization of bureaucracy, extension of the principles of horizontal decision-making and transition to the normal work week. Implementation of the system of nutritious food for vegans in the military service.2

Having organised and planned for different eventualities prior to the full-scale invasion, within a few days of it starting, the Resistance Committee reported that ‘Anti-authoritarian forces organized their own international detachment within the framework of the Territorial Defense of Ukraine. In addition, dozens of our friends are defending the capital and large cities with weapons in their hands.’3 They called for people to volunteer from abroad and form an ‘International Legion of Territorial Defense’.4 In the following days they reported that ‘experienced fighters are already on the combat missions while the rest are actively preparing to give a worthy rebuff to putin’s horde’5 and exclaimed ‘Don’t wait for Russian imperialism to come to you, join the fight now!’.6

This call to war was taken to heart by anarchists across Britain. A sense of solidarity with anarchist soldiers and opposition to Russian imperialism generated enthusiasm for the cause, with widespread fundraising for Operation Solidarity (later reorganised as the Solidarity Collectives).

Operation Solidarity is a network of activists who didn’t take arms but are working on providing equipment for the antiauthoritarian activists in Territorial Defense forces, such as bulletproof vests, medical kits and other tactical equipment which the state is not able or is to slow to provide. The initiative is also providing humanitarian work in those places it can.7

At the same time, other anarchists in Britain (including ourselves) were putting forward an anti-militarist criticism of the war in Ukraine, of remilitarisation across Europe, and of the accelerating shift towards direct inter-imperialist conflicts. These anarchists reaffirmed a trajectory of working class internationalism and resistance to war mobilisation through social struggle. They did not support alignment with national defence and criticised both the Russian and Ukrainian states, while analysing imperialist dynamics between Moscow and Washington D.C.

The anarchists supporting Ukraine’s defensive war were outraged by this disagreement. Furious arguments flooded social media (naturally) and the anarchist press in Britain. In the summer 2022 issue of Organise!, the magazine of the Anarchist Federation, the editor wrote that:

[…] right now your comrades are fighting a war and in war there is only a singular unquestionable fact. War is terrifying. The last thing they need is finger wagging from those many thousands of kilometres to the west. If your Anarchism doesn’t involve supporting those fighting against an invading imperial force because the lad one fox hole over maybe doesn’t agree with every principle you hold, then it’s little more than a sectarian old boys club, exclusive and useless. [...] If this is the solidarity of your Anarchism, fuck you. I spit on your Anarchism. You need to do better.8

He goes on:

How readily the words of solidarity turn to lead in your mouth. We’ve seen accusations of nationalism and xenophobia, “No True Anarchist” nonsense, and the echoes of Russian media oozing out as all to many Anarchists who are so used to blaming “The West” for everything. You just can’t bear to listen to Eastern European Anarchists eh? [...] I guess solidarity is just too difficult a concept in the days of popularist hot takes. They forget to listen to the fucking locals as they act like the Politburo of Anarchism. Please kindly, shut the fuck up.9

Several other articles in that issue continued this kind of censure. It is worth noting that the internationalist politics here being condemned were consistently and eloquently spread by the Anarchist Federation up until this time. The anarchist journal Freedom was, similarly, renowned for its anti-militarism from its founding in 1886 up until these turn of events. With the Russian invasion of 2022, however, Freedom took up an editorial line in favour of Ukrainian national defence. To their credit, they put the spotlight on voices from Ukraine (and Eastern Europe more broadly), amplifying their analysis and calls for solidarity. However, dissenting and critical voices from Ukraine and the region were completely suppressed. An editor of Freedom condemned anti-militarist critique as an expression of ‘Western exceptionalism’ and ignorance of the specific historical context of the war (in particular the role of Russian imperialism over preceding centuries).10 On the role of NATO, she writes that:

We see NATO in a completely different, and I dare say much more nuanced way. We are not fans of it, and we can agree with you on many, many reasons to criticise it. But when you say “Fuck NATO” or “End NATO expansion”, what I hear is that you do not care about the safety and wellbeing of my Eastern European friends, family and comrades. You are happy to put my mum at risk for cheap political points you would not even be able to act on, you bastards!11

The problem, as anarchists in Western Europe, with opposing the imperialist military alliance of our ruling class, so this argument goes, is that we are not respecting the national security needs of Eastern European states, nor respecting their agency in choosing to align with one imperialist bloc over another. Any talk of NATO’s role in the war in Ukraine is condemned as parroting Russian propaganda; in fact, if you are not supporting Ukraine, or at least keeping silent about your objections, then you are effectively on Russia’s side:

If you are protecting [Putin’s] hegemony over his vast and increasing empire, if you are What Abouting into helplessness, you are part of the aggressor. So pick up a weapon, or organise a fundraiser, or welcome a refugee, but even more preferably at this point – shut the fuuuuck up.12

We have quoted at length from Organise! and Freedom not only to acknowledge their point of view in their own words, but also because their vehement and denunciatory tone accurately reflects the atmosphere that enveloped anarchists in Britain discussing the issue. This is what we refer to as war fever, in which anything short of supporting the war effort is stigmatised. This tension infected anarchist bookfairs, social centres, and media, dividing what passes for an anarchist movement in Britain into two opposing tendencies.

‘Either with us or against us’ speaks the urgency of war (and its recruiting sergeants); therefore, anarchist anti-militarists opposing both sides are accused of being Putinists – apologists for Russian imperialism and its atrocities – either surreptitiously or simply as useful idiots. This correlates closely with the defamatory marginalisation of anti-war, anti-NATO, and pacifist views in mainstream public discourse, including corporate media and parliamentary politics. There has been a remarkable closing of ranks across the media spectrum in Europe, which can only be compared to the US moment after the attacks on September 11th in 2001 and the drumbeat for war which followed in the ‘War on Terror’. On the issue of the causes and realities of the war, freedom of speech was abandoned, just as it was on the question of Palestine the following year. Quickly all Russian media or voices, however distant from the government, were put behind a firewall. In a stunning paradox, the slur of repeating ‘Putin’s talking points’ emerged in an atmosphere where one could not hear a word from Putin or his government at all. Experts and journalists like John Mearsheimer and Glenn Greenwald were traduced and maligned and put on lists of those spreading ‘disinformation’, the most infamous being the Peacemaker (Myrotvorets) list. Run for many years, from NATO servers, and with the aim of intimidating dissent from the NATO line, it is a not-so-veiled call for individuals to be shunned and physically attacked.13 If individuals are assassinated, a line is drawn through the picture on their profile and the word ‘liquidated’ is added. We should look at the decision of the anarchist paper Freedom to join this infrastructure of repression, in this wider context of thought/speech policing.

As the war in Ukraine has dragged on, initial enthusiasm for ‘popular resistance’ has dissolved into the terrible realities of total war, remilitarisation across Europe has ramped up, and preparations for what amounts to a new world war have become impossible to ignore. In this context, some anarchists have been advocating anti-militarism for the most part, while still defending militarist politics in the conflict with Russia. But it is precisely Russia’s regional power and military aggression around which remilitarisation in the UK and its European allies is being oriented. While the current administration of the USA seeks partially to disengage from Europe and reach a settlement with the Russian government in order to facilitate a shift to the Indo-Pacific or Western Asia, European governments are preparing for direct war with Russia in the next decade. The regeneration of the British Armed Forces, heavy investment in the British arms industry, resurgence of militarist ideology throughout society, and steadily intensifying state authoritarianism are all aspects of a general mobilisation for war, which is daily brought nearer by these very preparations. For this reason the war in Ukraine cannot be an exception to our anti-militarism and internationalism; on the contrary, it is only after definitively breaking with the politics of national defence, the illusions of the democratic state, and the ideology of liberal militarism embodied in this cause, that we can coherently and effectively resist the ‘road to universal slaughter’.14

Diagnosis

What explanations can we find for so many anarchists turning to militarism, national unity, the democratic state, and NATO alignment in response to the Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine? Undoubtedly we must begin by acknowledging the weakness of many anarchist movements, scenes, and organisations in Europe, where this reaction is centred. Decades of neoliberalism and repression have left barren soil for militant class struggle or social movements to grow, while contemporary currents of anarchism have struggled to reach out beyond various activist milieux and small propaganda groups, losing their way in moralistic identitarian trends or revelling in individualist cynicism. Interestingly, some of the pro-war anarchists have themselves pointed to this condition of weakness, arguing that it forces their hand in compromising with the ideological and institutional forces of the status quo. We will return to this point later.

In the big picture, war is a continuous and normal phenomenon in the modern world, and militarism suffuses our societies from top (standing armies and arms industries) to bottom (values and subjectivities reproduced in everyday life). But when a particular nation is plunged into war, especially total war that engulfs all of society, it is a moment of exception and profound crisis. Crisis is always a double-edged sword for the ruling class: it can be an opportunity to re-assert waning social control and adapt to changing realities, but also leaves them vulnerable to de-legitimisation and revolt. Anarchists hoping to propel forward the latter possibilities must understand and resist the means by which the state seeks to stabilise, reconfigure and expand its authority (of which repression is far from the only element) and by which capitalism is restructured. In particular, vigilance is needed against channels of recuperation and disempowerment. In a war between nations, militarism and nationalism provide the central framework for this rallying of dominant powers. In Ukraine this takes the shape of unification around national defence. Of course, this process of unification – in so far as it seeks to shore up democratic legitimacy and mobilise the population – is presented in terms of democratic sovereignty, national freedom, and popular resistance.

Unification around national defence is not just an abstract concept to be analysed by historians. It is a powerful material and ideological movement that is felt throughout society, rooted in real human needs and fears, based on already existing political structures and ‘common sense’ perspective. Furthermore, strong forces of conformism and tribalism are brought into play, both as conscious policy from state institutions (often in a context of martial law) and through group dynamics. Deep currents of feelings of belonging, morality and outside threat are mobilised in the most cynical way. Historically, anarchists and syndicalists have sought to develop a sense of class consciousness and internationalism among the lower classes, through anti-militarist propaganda and general strikes, to resist this surging tide of national unity and disrupt mobilisation for war. Lacking the strength of such a movement, and lacking the class analysis and revolutionary strategy that would underpin it, it’s no wonder that scattered anarchist collectives have been unable to resist the call of national defence in Ukraine and support for this cause across Europe. Nonetheless, a significant part of the anarchist movement remains irreconcilable with warfare and other state politics.

It would be easy to dismiss all the anarchists throwing their lot in with one side of an inter-imperialist conflict as liberals and individualists, but in fact many are social anarchists who speak of social revolution and class struggle when the weather is fair. A fine example of this is Wayne Price, who writes that he ‘would prefer revolutionary internationalism’ but that anarchists should ‘cooperate’ with their own government and army in defensive war ‘so long as they are too weak to overturn the capitalist state’.15

There are several answers to this puzzle. To begin with, in the doldrums of rebellion we inhabit, anarchists are blighted by a weak and superficial grasp of the problems of revolutionary social change such that our more radical ideas crumble as soon as they are put to the test. We can talk ourselves to death about anarchist theory, but faced with the overwhelming force of circumstances, all that is quickly discarded as ‘dogma’. Instead we can jump on the bandwagon of whoever is actually doing something, and actually getting somewhere. Where it is they are going is beside the point, so long as they have the apparent success and popular support we lack. Corbynism and war fever have been two such epidemics among anarchists in Britain. Anarchists have mistaken large mobilisations (in one case a parliamentary party, in the other that of a unified military bloc) for the inevitable movement of historical forces and have only too readily fallen in line with the lesser evil.

‘The anarchists in England have paid for the gap between their day-to-day activities and their utopian aspirations,’ observes John Quail, in his historical survey.16 ‘This gap consists basically of a lack of strategy, […] a lack of ability to assess the general situation and initiate a general project which is consistent with the anarchist utopia.’17 Under the pressure of immediate realities, the link is broken altogether, and our day-to-day activities become accommodated to dominant social forces (such as parliamentary politics and military mobilisation) instead of self-determined methods and goals. Having conceded the present to the powers that be, and circumscribed radical change to an ever-receding future, we must make common cause with one master over another. This we call realism. The other side of the coin is an idealism that preaches a vision of utopia but is unable to make a substantial connection with the present, and therefore has nothing to offer but ideas, increasingly withdrawn from reality. A revolutionary strategy is one that situates methods of social transformation in our concrete reality; it is effective insofar as our everyday struggle begins to bring our ideal into reality.

This process of radical social change is not separate from the deprivations and oppressions that shape our lives: it is the struggle to overcome them. Some anarchists, however, have fallen into the error of separating revolutionary politics from the need to resist political reaction or imperialist domination. Insofar as these threaten the liberties that we have already gained, it follows, we find ourselves forced to defend the status quo so as not to fall back further into slavery. In abandoning our revolutionary strategy for a defence of liberal democracy, we (consciously or not) revert to an understanding of the world that is produced by (and reproduces) the existing social order. Hence a framework of national sovereignty, democratic progressivism, and military logic displaces our anarchist politics. Bracketing any criticism of the political domination, social hierarchy, and class exploitation that underlies such ideals, we are lost in a world of rhetoric. The Manichean battle between civilisation and barbarism is again revived, casting Ukraine’s national defence as holding the borders of Europe against a new Russian Empire on the march, with allusions to Mongol hordes and Oriental Despotism. Of course, the verbiage and aesthetics of anarchism can then be draped over the old framework of nationalism and militarism in terms of ‘resistance’. Left-wing anti-imperialism offers a fountain of ideology for the disoriented anarchist to drink from.

Luigi Fabbri, contending with similar debates among anarchists on the issue of Italian intervention in the First World War, summarised that:

At the bottom of this there is often an incomplete understanding of anarchism, it is seen as being separated from actual everyday life, inapplicable, in practice, to the problems of real life, not responding to the everyday immediate necessity of defending liberty, the rights of the individual and of the proletariat. Hence the accusation addressed to those who, in life and in struggle, wish to remain in accord with their principles as separated from reality, neglecting the pressing demands of human civilization, sacrificing them to an arid abstract formula. This is the accusation made by the partisans of intervention against us anarchists, as in the great conflict we remained on the great revolutionary terrain, a terrain of freedom and of the proletariat. Their error was a fundamental error of analysis. Anarchism is not only a far-off ideal for a future society, nor just a spiritual abstraction above human contingency, it is all of that, and more: a living and struggling practice, a method of conscious evolution, of preparation and revolution, a concept of movement and action, an ideal that is, continuously, being achieved.18

Anarchist anti-militarism, therefore, involves not only fine words against war, but also the attempt to apply anarchist methods to the problems of life in the midst of its horrors, develop strategies to navigate the terrain of invasions and occupations, and subvert the social processes that produce and sustain warfare at its root. If this is not possible then anarchism is no longer of use to us, and there is no need to carry the black flag to the enlistment office. Anarchism, or the state? This choice we face, in war as in peace. Through world wars, revolutions, totalitarian regimes, and liberal hegemony, anarchists have sought to find a path of social liberation, and from this we must learn.

Our critique of nationalism is drawn from such experience: indeed, nationalism seems to have been handmaiden to all the horrors of the twentieth century. Cloudy thinking on the subject can only be to our detriment, yet it seems we are forever talking past each other about entirely different things. Thus nationalism can be condemned as a racist, right-wing ideology in one conversation, while we champion national defence in the next. Fredy Perlman argues that ‘nationalism is not a word with a static definition; it is a term that covers a sequence of different historical experiences,’ and goes on to trace this sequence from the American Revolution to Marxist-Leninist-Maoist national liberation struggles.19 For Perlman, the nation developed as part of the socio-political organisation of capitalism, as the rising bourgeoisie (in both the imperial metropoles and colonies) seized political power having already established economic dominance as a class. From that time onwards, nationalism in its various forms was refined as the model for establishing and defending state power, as well as securing the foundations for capitalist development.20

How then do anarchists relate to nationalism? Carlos Taibo writes that, in the past, he could see two responses to the national question.

The first one states that, since the nineteenth century and on a significant part of the planet, political communities articulate themselves unequivocally and unavoidably in the form of nations that are, to borrow Benedict Anderson’s expression, imagined communities, whereas the second considers nations to be artificial and vested constructs that respond to the brazen aim of setting aside the class struggle and assuring the corresponding privileges of the bourgeoisies.21

He notes that the second response would offer a clear resolution to the national question for anarchists, but that reality is far more complex. Certainly, we think that national consciousness is promoted by governments, bosses, schools, media, and militaries in order to manage and mobilise the working class against their own interests, neutralising class consciousness. But we see no need to limit our understanding of nationalism to this specific function. The way that political communities are formed, organised, and articulate themselves is, for anarchists, not to be taken as a given, but put in question right down to the foundations. For anarchists, to break down the state, not only as a set of institutions but as the political community shaping (more than often, violently) our social relations, we must understand the framework of political consciousness that it produces and by which it is reproduced. Nationalism is a key part of this framework, but we disagree there is anything ‘unavoidable’ about it. Insofar as anarchists seek a thoroughgoing social transformation, we must expand our political consciousness beyond what is given in the status quo (beyond even what we can dig up in history) and be able to imagine a different kind of social and political community. When we criticise ‘nationalist ideology’ we are criticising the ideological deployment of national consciousness and the subordination to the nation-state that it entails.

• 1‘Manifesto of Resistance Committee’ (2022), accessed on medium.com/@rescom
• 2Ibid.
• 3‘The Resistance Committee (ENG)’ (2022), accessed on medium.com/@rescom
• 4Ibid.
• 5‘Resistance Committee’ (2022), accessed on medium.com/@rescom
• 6Ibid.
• 7‘This is not a war where there is space for ideological purity: An interview with Denis from Operation Solidarity.’ (2022), accessed on theanarchistlibrary.org
• 8P. Ó Máille, ‘Editorial’, in Organise! #96 (2022)
• 9Ibid.
• 10Z. Brom, ‘Fuck leftist westplaining’ (2022), accessed on freedomnews.org.uk
• 11Ibid.
• 12Ibid.
• 13“Independent” Ukrainian “Kill List” Actually Run By Kiev, Backed by Washington, by David Miller, May 12th 2023 https://www.mintpressnews.com/independent-ukraine-kill-list-actually-run-by-kiev-backed-by-washington/284639/
• 14As Emma Goldman referred to militarisation for deterrence.
• 15‘Should Anarchists Defend Ukraine? A Response to Bill Beech’ in Black Flag, Autumn 2024, Vol4, No3 https://www.anarchistfaq.org/blackflag/BlackFlag-vol4-no3.pdf
• 16J. Quail, ‘The Slow Burning Fuse’ (London: Freedom Press, 2017), p. 335.
• 17Ibid.
• 18Cited in A. W. Zurbrugg, 'Anarchist Perspectives in Peace and War 1900-1918' (London: Merlin Press, 2018), p. 175.
• 19F. Perlman, 'The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism' (1984), accessed on theanarchistlibrary.org
• 20Ibid.
• 21C. Taibo, 'Rethinking Anarchy' (Chico: AK Press, 2019), p. 112.