3 posts / 0 new
Last post
Joined: 10-04-08
Apr 10 2008 12:57

Comrades, help us please!
Some time ago, we confronted in this country for first time a new problem. There are some people which call themselves anarchists and participated actively in different activities (also antifa etc.) but which state that the differencies between ethnies are a positive thing inself. They underline their "Russian slavic ethnicity", practicize old paganism and strongly refuse capitalist cosmopolitism for destroing of differencies between "ethnies". After I translated a text from French anarcho-syndicalist paper (with the opinion that the use of local languages, the folk music etc. are of course normal but the politization of ethnicity with a so called "pride" is fascistoid and that it is no important to be for ex. basque, breton etc. when there are place for all in the World), they called this opinion for fascist and "cosmopolitan capitalist evil" shared may be also by Western anarchists.

So, they share a concept of "ethnical". They stated, the difference between "we" and "they", "ours and theirs" is absolutelly OK if it don`t hinder a normal cooperation between different "ethnies" and "cultures"

Our problem is that we don`t have experience and also good books, articles etc. for make a continuous and coherent polemics with them utilizing the good arguments because they are very smart and say that they are not "new rights" because they recognize the possibility for all ethnies to develop theirs cultures without hierarchy etc.

So comrades, we want to know what do you think about this tendency and to ask for some good text for critics of it.

Khawaga's picture
Joined: 7-08-06
Apr 10 2008 16:30

This is something that has been brought up in quite a few threads now. While there's a lot to read there are some interesting nuggets in there.





http://libcom.org/forums/thought/what-national-syndicalism (this is slightly relevant in the beginning at least)

Joined: 29-09-06
Apr 12 2008 10:09

While I think cultural diversity is a positive thing overall, one has to be careful with "ethnic" trends. These are often linked with the ideas of the New Right - if those people read Ethnopluralist Manifesto of DeBenoist and see nothing wrong with it, you know what direction they're heading in.

One has to be careful because there is a difference in perceptions between liberal "miltikulti" types, some of whom just imagine some skansenized vision of ethnic groups like from the enthnological museum and those who are moving into more deep rooted reaction.

The problem in Russia is that for years you're been moving towards a more and more nationalistic approach. The "etnos" is supposed to by the precious thing which is supposedly attacked and undermined by the outsider. Of course the Slavic nature of Russia is a mystic relic and has no connection with the real culture that anybody was brought up in. In my opinion, it is a substitute issue for people who feel powerless to create some false common identity.

BTW I think that it might be interesing now to see how the internationalists in 1918 were arguing against Lenin's idea to create national states.