Review of "Their Wars - Our Dead: Anarchist Reflections on Anti-Militarism" edited by Alex Adler and Bill Beech - Communist Workers’ Organisation / Internationalist Communist Tendency (2026)

Cover of "Their Wars – Our Dead: Anarchist Reflections on Anti-Militarism" edited by Alex Adler and Bill Beech

Alex Alder and Bill Beech (eds.), Their Wars – Our Dead: Anarchist Reflections on Anti-Militarism (2025, Active Distribution), pmpress.org.uk

Author
Internationalist Communist Tendency
Communist Workers' Organisation (CWO)
Submitted by blackrabbits123 on February 20, 2026

Since the war in Ukraine, the anarchist movement in the UK and elsewhere has split on the question of internationalism. The authors of this book are in the internationalist camp and have published it in order to make their views known. As internationalists, we welcome this effort by our comrades. The authors state they do not wish to simply rehash the debates of the last three years but want "to reflect on the place of anarchism in anti-militarism historically, and at present moment" (p.6) and seek "to learn from the past in order to figure out a revolutionary yet realistic course of anarchist anti-militarism today". (p.25)

The six authors are based in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England. They have been or continue to be members of organisations such as the Anarchist Communist Group (ACG), Solidarity Federation (SolFed), Organise!, or the AnarCom Network (ACN). Some of them are known to us and have participated in the No War but the Class War (NWBCW) initiative.1

The authors of the introduction, Alex Alder and Bill Beech, summarise how, following the war in Ukraine, anarchists in Great Britain caught war fever.2 That so many anarchists succumbed to warmongering is due to the weakness of both the anarchist current and the workers' movement in general. Some pro-war anarchists acknowledge this weakness and in fact use it as an argument in favour of compromising with the ruling class. Some anarchists' enthusiasm for Corbynism is also seen as a precursor to the falling in line with warmongering.3 It should be noted this is also found outside the UK, with anarchists backing Mélenchon's party in France for example.

The authors are critical of national defence and national liberation movements because "whenever the lower classes have taken up the model of nationalism for their own liberation, their success has only yielded another regime of oppression and exploitation, new rounds of war and genocide, all the while excluding peoples within their territory, forging 'oppressed nations' ready to repeat the cycle". (p.22)

The introduction examines the causes of the war in Ukraine. They claim, as we do, that the war is an inter-imperialist conflict. However, they reject Marxists arguing "for the primacy of economic forces in the origins of the war". They portray Marxists as "detectives" identifying "the 'falling rate of profit' of Russian capital or some other deep crisis of Russian capitalism" as the cause of the war. This is a caricature of the Marxist explanation of imperialism.4 Further, capitalism is a global system and an inter-imperialist war could not be explained by a crisis concerning only one side. The authors recognise that crisis fuels "nationalist authoritarianism, imperialist bloc retrenchment, and a normalisation of war", (p.33) that Ukraine's land, whether for agriculture or mining, is a worthy prize, that "in part, war is certainly waged to secure markets and interests of capital, which is international", (p.26) and explain that Russian capitalists would rather Ukrainian enterprises remain in their orbit than be sold off to Western capitalists but ultimately believe that "the notion that the relatively comfortable and very lucrative relationship of Western capital with the Russian one (epitomised in the Nord Stream pipelines) was to be thrown away for the sake of a risky Russian imperialist escapade is not credible". (p.27) By this logic, international trade would always be antithetical to imperialism.

NATO expansion into Ukraine is seen as a better explanation. We would argue that these sorts of geopolitical manoeuvres ultimately have economic causes. Similarly, another cause given is the rise of BRICS (decorrelated from economic forces?). The cause of wars in general is considered to be the "military apparatus directed by the state". (p.23) But what pushes the state to act this way?

The concept of "militarism" plays a key role in their understanding of war. They define militarism as "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". (p.7) Militarism is "inherent to the state and, in its modern form, essential to capitalism". (p.34-35) Aside from "repressive institutions, militarism is materialised in a military-industrial-scientific complex of research, development, production, marketing and trading". It "takes different forms depending on the political, economic, and historical context of its development". (p.36) In Western countries, it takes the form of "liberal militarism", which uses the façade of international law, humanitarian intervention, democracy, global security, to conceal its aims. They explain militarism, no matter its form, "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". (p.15) This crisis is a double-edged sword, which can serve to further the interests of the ruling class but also may invite revolt. Militarism and patriarchal gender roles mutually reinforce each other. They explain militarism is found in all class societies and is maintained by "manly discipline" and "patriotism". They later explain nationalism (and patriotism) as a product of bourgeois society specifically. (p.19-21) Today, social media is an instrument of militarism, with its "instant and pervasive claims to displays of loyalty and conformity, coupled with the rule by fear of cancellation and shunning". (p.8) Apparently, then, the state and militarism are the prime causes of war. This idealist approach blames war for war, having explained nothing. The state and "militarism" may form a framework allowing war to happen but alone do not cause this or that war. Not all chapters seem to follow this approach.

Nonetheless, we agree that "a revolutionary movement capable of thwarting war in the short term and ultimately changing society altogether is a movement of the working class as a whole, not the conspiracy of a politically active minority". (p.40) The anarchists remind us that they are against this latter conception of a "revolutionary dictatorship", instead aiming "for the oppressed and exploited masses to emancipate themselves through their self-organised direct action. In this we participate, as part of this class ourselves, leading by example and sharing our ideas". (p.24) For us, this self-organisation of the class against its oppressors is none other than the dictatorship of the proletariat and this leadership of part of the class sounds similar to our conception of the role of the party. They agree with us that war in Ukraine is not an isolated incident and that there is a trend towards a generalised war, understood as a conflict between imperialist blocs. This is also why they urge anarchists to rediscover anti-militarism.

The first chapter, by Declan McCormick, provides a brief overview of internationalist anarchist opposition to militarism and war since the First World War. McCormick argues that anarchists have historically taken the position of revolutionary defeatism, with the notable exception of some figures like Kropotkin during the First World War.

By the Second World War, the anarchist movement was weaker. In France, where it still had some strength, some joined the official Resistance groups but most rejected their nationalist nature. In the UK, the movement was smaller but likewise refused to take sides, as exemplified by the Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation (APCF) and the United Socialist Movement (USM), influenced by both anarchism and council communism. This is the subject of the last chapter.

Later, anarchists in the UK opposed the US's invasion of Vietnam without supporting the Stalinist regime of Ho Chi Minh. They did not support either the UK or Argentina in the Falklands War. Anarchists in Argentina did not support the generals that had tortured and killed them either. They did not "support one group of nationalist gangsters against another during the slaughter" that followed the collapse of Yugoslavia. (p.52)

That the war in Ukraine broke this trend is therefore surprising. The author believes that lack of understanding of what imperialism is, commitment to the ideology of anti-fascism, lack of class analysis, and identity politics are what allowed this to happen. Oddly, neither the introduction nor this chapter mention the recent support within the anarchist movement for states in formation like Rojava as paving the way for current pro-war anarchists.5

The second chapter, by Andrew Żywności, looks at conscription in Ukraine, Russia, and Israel. Professional armies cost less and volunteer soldiers are less ideologically volatile than conscripts. So why use conscription? "To tie the masses to the long-term stability of the state". (p.64) Hence the national service in place in countries across the world. But this is different to conscription during an active war. Russia and Ukraine employ conscription also because of a need for bodies. Żywności reasons that the lack of working-class opposition to the war in Russia stems from the health of the economy:

When the invasion started there was opposition to the war from within Russia, though it had not formed a cohesive working-class movement. This is no doubt also due to the booming economy which is seen as a reward of the war's successes and the state's ability to render the US/EU sanctions completely ineffective. The World Bank has consistently upgraded Russia's GDP PPP, and it was most recently classed as the world's 4th largest economy. (p.66-67)

Nonetheless, many have fled conscription. However, "it is easier for the upper and middle classes to leave". (p.67) The state also uses convicts. The deal is the same as with conscription: the army or prison. Convicts are brutally kept in line, as exemplified by the murder of Yevgeny Nuzhin. The lack of serious opposition to conscription is thus also due to the Russian state's ruthless repression, though a few organisations like the Anarchist Black Cross have provided support for anti-war activists.

Ukraine also uses conscription and convicts. The upper age limit of conscripts is 60 and the average age of conscripts was 43-45 in February 2024, despite criticisms from some of the military on the efficacy of those conscripted. The disabled are next. Again, the wealthier you are the easier it is to dodge conscription, notably by bribing recruitment officers. Those who stay hidden in their homes can often work from home. Despite the treacherous route, tens of thousands have left the country. Desertion from training posts is common. State repression against deserters has increased since 2024.

The purpose of conscription in Israel is a lot more ideological as Israel does not have a desperate need for bodies, as shown for example by the fact that Palestinian Israelis are not conscripted. Israel has a long history of draft dodgers but motivations vary widely: pacifism, anti-Zionism, pro-Zionism, religion, anti-war sentiments. Żywności explains that "the role of internationalists is not to pick and choose sides, our side is the working class and we should not countenance states coercing our brothers and sisters into fighting one another". He further explains that "states require bodies for their war machines, and capitalism requires state power to defend wealth hoarded through exploitation. Nationalism keeps us cheering on the state's war machine and ignorant to the exploitation of capitalism." (p.81-82)

In the third chapter, Jason Brannigan examines the relationship between anarchism and militarism in Ireland during the Troubles. He first gives a brief history of pre-partition Ireland and its class struggles. He then explains that "the development of Irish Unionism and Nationalism as recognisably modern ideologies coincided with the development of capitalism and the emergence of the organised working-class. Partition copper-fastened divisions in the labour movement". (p.87) The working class in Northern Ireland could occasionally unite across the divide, as shown by the Outdoor Relief strike of 1932.

The first meeting of the Belfast Anarchist Group (BAG) took place at the same time as the Derry Housing Action Committee's historic march on 5 October 1968 (few attended as a result). Anarchism as a political movement was thus born in Northern Ireland alongside the Civil Rights movement. The latter were primarily inspired by the movement in the US while the anarchists were inspired by the general strike in France in May-June 1968.

Some of the problems that have confronted anarchist organising and organisations in Ireland are similar to issues that are being faced by anarchists in the current historic period as imperialist and militarist aggression intensifies across the globe. This includes questions of uncritical support for the struggles of national liberation movements around an increasingly brutal and barbarous planet. (p.90)

Members of the BAG took part in the foundation of Peoples Democracy (PD) on 9 October 1968. As the political situation unfolded, the gap grew between anarchists who remained within PD and those who did not. A few from West Belfast reverted to Republicanism, explaining that anarchism was a luxury in a time where national defence was needed. In March 1973, the remaining members of the BAG issued a press statement in response to claims in the English press that anarchists were aiding the Provisional IRA (PIRA). They explained that "the conditions that divide the working class are perpetuated by these groups through their inability or refusal to escape the trap of nationalism and sectarianism". (p.94) The others were angry at the statement, believing that the PIRA should not be criticised. The remaining BAG members, who had been criticised for not convening a full meeting of the group, then formed the Belfast Libertarian Group. Following detainment from the Royal Ulster Constabulary and threats from the Provos they disbanded in early 1974.

The descent into sectarian armed conflict shattered these anarchist groups. The next generation of anarchists formed without having experienced politics outside of the context of the Troubles. The Belfast Anarchist Collective (BAC) and Just Books were formed in 1978. The group included people from both sides of the conflict. The location of Just Books was accessible to both sides of the city's working class. However, criticism of the militarism of the Republican movement was absent. The BAC disappeared in the mid-eighties. There was overlap between its existence and the subsequent groups.

The Ballymena Anarchist Group was formed in 1981, and expanded its membership and became Organise! in late 1986. In the South, anarchists in Cork and Dublin established the Workers Solidarity Movement (WSM) in 1984. Membership of the WSM remained low until the May Day protest in Dublin in 2004. After a period of rapid growth, the organisation declined from 2010 onwards and disbanded in 2021. Organise! never experienced much growth but still exists. Though involved in similar campaigns (for abortion rights, anti-war activity, including direct action against US military use of Shannon airport during the Iraq war, against attempts at introducing water charges by both the Southern government and Stormont), each was largely limited to the North or South in its membership and activity. Both welcomed the 1994 ceasefires. Organise! explicitly argued for demilitarisation on the part of all combatants, including the state. Brannigan argues Organise! was clearer in its anti-militarism. They stressed that the victims of the Troubles were overwhelmingly working class. It led to the only place it was ever going to lead: a negotiated settlement, not a Republican victory, much less a proletarian revolution. Brannigan argues national liberation struggles do not present an opportunity for but are toxic to working class interests. He argues, as did the BAC, that the Irish state's neutrality and non-membership of NATO was a determining factor in the British military presence in the North. The end of the Cold War thus permitted an end to the Troubles. The situation has now changed, with rampant militarism, recurrent threats of conscription in the UK, and pressure on the South to join NATO since the war in Ukraine.

The final chapter, by Jasmine Lloyd, examines anarchist opposition to war in Britain during the Second World War. While anarchists and communists are often met with little pushback when it comes to revolutionary defeatism during the First World War, when it comes to the Second World War the conversation is more difficult as the inter-imperialist war takes the guise of an anti-fascist war or a people's war. As also covered in the first chapter, in the Russo-Ukrainian War today both sides are drawing on the image of the Second World War as an anti-fascist war to justify the ongoing conflict. She argues that those that profess to believe in the revolutionary potential of class struggle need to prioritise it regardless of its popularity.

In a 2008 debate, the anarchist Ian Bone (Class War) disagreed with the Socialist Party of Great Britain's (SPGB) position against the Second World War on the grounds that while the ruling class started it, the working class fought and won it. Lloyd points out this logic could be applied to all imperialist wars. She claims that ironically anarchists had been more actively opposed to the Second World War than the SPGB, giving the example of a 1942 debate with anarchists where the SPGB speaker refused to consider the possibility of direct action against the war by workers (though she does note that many SPGBers were conscious objectors and active in the workplace, but claims they were acting as individuals rather than as representatives of the party). The anarchist movement grew during the Second World War due to this principled opposition whereas, as mentioned above, it had become weaker in the interwar years. They challenged the idea it was a people's war or a revolutionary war. Thus, British anarchists today are ashamed or ignorant of anarchist history during the Second World War. This chapter attempts to set the record straight.

Despite draconian laws and trade union leaders participating in the war government, the number of strikes grew throughout the war. While anarchists participated in strikes, Labour, the Trades Union Congress (TUC), and Stalinists broke strikes. The Independent Labour Party (ILP) and Trotskyists, for their part, were "effectively opposed to the war without being completely against it". (p.119) Despite this, they were often involved in the same strikes. The Socialist Labour Party (SLP) and the aforementioned SPGB were also active during the war. There were also pacifists, both religious and secular. While "anarchist papers were widely read by pacifists, and anarchists heavily recruited from the pacifist movement", most pacifists were not sympathetic to anarchism and anarchists were opposed to pacifism. (p.120)

Anarchists during the Second World War organised within the Anarchist Federation (AF), mostly based in London and Glasgow, which initially explicitly excluded pacifists and pro-war anarchists. Spanish anarchists joined the British army and those who did not were under pressure not to oppose the war for fear of being deported. By the Second World War, most anarchists had left the aforementioned APCF.6 They were largely confined to Glasgow. The USM had split from the APCF in 1934 and were also primarily based in Glasgow. The USM was more concerned with pacifism than with the workers' movement. The Glasgow Anarchist Federation (GAF) had merged in 1940 from another split from the APCF and a Marxian study group. It is the only one of these Glasgow groups to have joined the AF. There was overlap between these organisations, with individuals contributing to each other's papers. Women were more prominent than in the wider left.

Though anarchists were imprisoned throughout the war, anarchists were surprised at the lack of targeted repression. Lloyd speculates this could have been due to anarchists undermining Stalinists, the small size of the movement despite its growth, the possibility that repression would undermine the idea that the war was fought to defend democracy or simply because repression might have backfired and increased the anarchists' popularity. More than repression, the AF's 1944-1945 split was the primary cause of its decline. London and Glasgow were divided and the GAF fell apart. Lloyd speculates that a cause of the split could have been that the Glasgow anarchists tended to be workers while the London anarchists "were perceived to be intellectuals and middle class". (p.131) Another possibility is that pacifists and certain pro-war Spanish anarchists had joined, causing tensions. Personality clashes between prominent members could have also been a cause. She believes that the AF's decline might also be due to being too confined to London and Glasgow and to a lack of respect for organisational structure and processes. War Commentary, the newspaper of the AF, became Freedom after the war and now defends the war in Ukraine. SolFed also traces its roots back to the AF. Its predecessor criticised the strikebreaking and colonialist policies of the post-war Labour government.

Anarchists pursued three main strategies against the war: conscientious objection, revolutionary agitation within the military, and organising within the workplace. The AF pursued all these. Many anarchists became conscious objectors (COs), though there was the usual debate on whether they should also refuse alternative service, which would result in imprisonment (the debate between COs and insoumis, for those familiar with the French version of the debate). Anarchist COs doing agricultural work in mobile gangs allied with others, such as SPGBers, against the capitalist-farmers and landowners within the farm-workers' union. Anarchists also helped deserters. Other anarchists argued against conscious objection, believing it best to organise against war within the army and vital industries.

While the APCF, preferring conscious objection and workplace disputes, criticised Trotskyists who believed revolutionaries should join the army, other anarchists believed that the Second World War would see a wave of mutinies and soldiers' councils across the world like in 1917 and joined the army to agitate. Some believed that the army would be useful in teaching military techniques. War Commentary could easily be distributed amongst soldiers due to its innocuous name and soldiers wrote for it. Many anarchists were imprisoned for agitating within the army. "Some anarchists signed up as COs to win exemption from conscription, before voluntarily joining the armed forces as agitators". (p.137) This pattern may have brought them to the attention of the authorities. Ultimately, anarchists had little influence within the army.

Certain vital industries protected from conscription made for viable alternatives to conscious objection. Anarchists supported strikes, for instance the 1944 Clydeside and Tyneside apprentices' strike. When four Trotskyists were imprisoned for their involvement, anarchists participated in the Anti-Labour Laws Victims Defence Committee which got them released. The GAF was involved, alongside Trotskyist and ILP trade unionists, in the 1943-1944 strike at the Barr and Stroud engineering factory. The strike came under pressure from trade union bureaucrats and Stalinists. While anarchists managed to establish footholds in certain industries, collective anarchist organisation within workplaces was ultimately lacking, especially outside Glasgow. Of the three strategies, Lloyd argues agitation within the workplace should have been prioritised the most.

Lloyd believes that "the anarchist analysis of war put forward in WWII still holds merit to this day. It is clear that the tensions between China and Taiwan or Ukraine and Russia has more to do with economic factors such as the control of markets and the interests of economic blocs, or imperial spheres of influence, than ideology or a desire to prevent injustices". (p.150) She argues that "we must continue to fight against nationalism and militarism, and for a working class revolution to establish a global, moneyless, stateless and classless society". (p.153-154) Earlier, Brannigan also summed up the book's main message, which we can only endorse:

No matter the outcome of the war in territorial terms, workers on all sides of the borders (redrawn or not) will be subject to more exploitative forms of capital and harsher, more nationalist and authoritarian regimes. This and all other wars must be opposed through anti-militarist propaganda and action, or we will witness our class being increasingly divided and sucked into romantic and chauvinistic nationalism in service of those who control what we are told is 'our' nation. Jingoism, patriotism, war-mongering, intensified nationalism, sectarianism, and racism make us weaker and more divided – more easily exploited and oppressed. It plays into the hands of those seeking to 'divide and conquer' and weakens working class solidarity. The common misery, struggles and victories of the working-class are ignored, twisted, sidelined and written out of history. Our disaffection is recuperated by war, the threat of war and the creation of external enemies. States and capital profit and secure themselves while convincing us that other working class and poor people are our enemies and sending us out to kill each other. Even cases of national liberation can be managed and accommodated as capitalist exploitation nor state oppression are in reality confronted – in the 'best' outcome one state will simply be replaced by another. War divides and weakens our class and as a direct result weakens movements based on the real liberation of the working-class. Against this anarchists must seek unity based on the common struggle of the working-class against capital and state – all states – towards the creation of a truly free and equal society. (p.107)

Despite our political differences, the fact that some anarchists are still attempting to excavate an internationalist tendency within their tradition is a positive development. Although the book would have benefited from a deeper framework for contextualising the current drive to war7 , we nevertheless hope it will spark a wider discussion among anarchists, particularly in the face of current attempts to revive the splintered anarchist scene in the UK.

- Erwan
Communist Workers' Organisation
November 2025

Comments

Related content