WORLD WORLDWIDE RUSSIA News Journal Update - (en) Russia, AIT: "Innovations" in anarchism: "national self-determination" and "coincidence of interests" with capital?! (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

 The following lines (written by comrades from Central Europe - translation.) are

a short response to an article by Wayne Price published on the website of the
Czech Anarchist Federation (AF). The delay in our short answer can only be
explained by the fact that we could not recover for a long time from the text "Do
anarchists succumb to war fever?"[this text was originally published in English
on the Anarkismo network]. We proceeded from the premise that even such a
programmatically disparate and confused organization as the AF cannot deviate
even from the basic principles of anarchism, since it is already embedded in its
name. But we were wrong. -- In the context of the war in Ukraine, under the guise
of referring to specific conditions and critical support, Wayne Price (and the AF
that published his text) are trying to introduce into anarchism (which we
understand as a revolutionary movement and part of the general struggle of the
proletariat against the dictatorship of capital) the main elements of bourgeois
ideology, in direct conflict with the anarchist program for the liberation of
mankind. Note that this program does not follow from the text of this or that
anarchist theorist, but was formed in opposition to capitalism, in the struggle
against it and as its negation.

Anarchists for the nation?

Who exactly is supported by the "anarchists" of the AF in Ukraine? Wayne Price is
trying to convince us that we are talking about an "oppressed nation." He states
that "anarchists reject nationalism, but not the goal of national
self-determination (...), including the freedom of the people to choose which
political system they want (for example, a democratic state, a centralized state,
or no state at all[anarchy]) - and their freedom to decide, what economic system
they want (state socialism, capitalism, libertarian socialism)."

The fact that "anarchists" operate with the concept of nation is new for us! So
far, we have assumed that anarchists oppose the nation and its material
consequences, such as the nation state, national self-determination, national
unity, and ultimately even war between nations. Revolutionary anarchists have
always taken anti-national positions, and not without reason. If we affirm that
social relations correspond to the stage of development of material production
and also produce principles, ideas and categories corresponding to these social
relations, then it is clear that these ideas, these categories, are only
historical and transient products that arise and disappear. Such an idea is also
the nation, an artificially created formation, a historical product of the
development of productive forces, which served the bourgeoisie for the
realization of its revolution and for the establishment of its rule. And also in
order to attach the proletariat to his project, to divide it into national
states, to convince him that his interests coincide with the interests of the
capitalists of the same nationality, so that he could better manage them
physically and ideologically.

The nation is an artificial union of the exploited and the exploiters. "People's
independence, culture and national freedom" that Wayne Price speaks of is just a
territory in which the bourgeoisie can exploit us at will and make us believe
that if we are driven to work by a slave owner who speaks our language, we it
would be more acceptable to work hard at him.

The formation of the proletariat as a class is constantly undermined by
competition between the proletarians as free and equal sellers of goods and labor
power. All ideological, political and military forces reinforce this atomization
on which social peace and the bourgeois order rest. The proletariat is
disintegrating into peoples, this is the bourgeois denial of the exploited as a
universal entity - as a class opposed to capital. And this denial ends in the end
with slaughter in the capitalist war.

The creation and existence of nation-states has not eliminated the very essence
of the bourgeoisie-competition-which forces groups of the bourgeoisie to engage
in violent confrontation with each other and confront each other at all levels in
matters of distribution of means of production and markets. Unity within the
bourgeoisie (eg within the nation state, international treaties, etc.) is
established to obtain the best possible conditions in a trade war (as well as a
class war). This unity can at any moment break up into various specific factions
that will defend their interests in mutual conflicts.

Therefore, any peace is only a phase of the upcoming war. On the other hand,
every action of the proletariat, however partial, in which it acts for its own
sake and its own interests, contains the affirmation of the proletariat and its
struggle for a general social revolution.

That is why anarchism as a revolutionary movement from the very beginning opposes
the fatherland, the nation and the national struggle and seeks the destruction of
all borders and nations. Revolutionary anarchists do not support one nation
against another, even if it is "weaker", "captured" and "oppressed". The
revolutionary anarchists are on the side of the proletariat on both sides of the
front.

Coincidence of whose interests?

The fact that some "anarchists" are fighting for the interests of the Ukrainian
state, Price explains by some temporary "coincidence of the interests of Western
imperialism and the Ukrainian people."

If "anarchists" feel that their interests "temporarily" intersect with the
interests of the bourgeoisie, they should seriously consider what interests are
really at stake. In the case of Russia and the opposing Western powers, it is
about expanding the sphere of influence and maintaining the status of a buffer
zone for Ukraine.

As far as we know, anarchists, as part of the movement of our class, have always
been and remain interested in bringing about a social revolution. In the
implementation of the interests of the oppressed class, its liberation from the
yoke of capitalism, the realization of the real community of mankind.

So what is the convergence of interests?

Just as it is not in the interests of the proletariat to build new factories (in
which it will exchange its vital energy for dirt and sweat for meager wages,
contributing not only to the enrichment of a particular capitalist owner, but
above all to the reproduction of all the social relations of capital that it
enslave), it is not in his interest to protect national borders, the integrity of
the territory, democracy or "human rights", which serve only as a framework for
his exploitation and an instrument of control.

Wayne Price refers to the example of Friends of Durruti. But he did not at all
understand their criticism of the united front. After all, the united front,
which the Friends of Durruti criticized, is not only a single formal
organization, the participation of anarchists in the government or cooperation
with one party or another, but also an informal alliance, a single course of
struggle for and in the name of the bourgeois program, a departure from the
program of the proletariat and postponing it for a time "after the war", that is,
just the above-mentioned unity of interests.

Indeed, the Friends of Durruti did not demand the withdrawal of the anarchists
from the front, but this turned out to be a decisive mistake from a historical
point of view. While the proletarians of the Aragonese front thought that by
their struggle they were defending the ongoing social revolution against the
fascists, the democratic anti-fascist parties carried out the counter-revolution
in the rear. In other words, instead of freezing in the trenches and suffering
from a lack of supplies and ammunition, the anarchists of Spain had to go to
Barcelona and Madrid to repulse the forces that, under the cover of a united
anti-fascist front, were step by step restoring the dominance of capital. The
Spanish revolution was defeated both at the hands of the fascists, and precisely
- and above all - at the hands of the democratic parties that prepared the ground
for them.

Now there is no proletarian revolution in Ukraine, and the proletarians at the
front are dying, no doubt, only for the bourgeois state and its interests.
Therefore, we cannot but repeat what many have pointed out before us. The
proletariat is not interested either in the defense of its state or in the
struggle for democracy. Neither democracy nor "our own state" is a more fertile
ground for class struggle-quite the contrary.

The slogan of the Ukrainian proletariat is not "Glory to Ukraine" (a better, more
democratic, socially just and in general one that cannot exist in the reality of
capitalist relations), but "Not a single person from factories, not a single
penny from wages!"

What kind of solidarity?

We can understand the capitalist world and its deep social contradictions only
through the prism of the proletarian struggle, which is and must be
internationalist. The proletariat, in whatever country and in whatever conditions
it may be, constitutes a single international class and, according to the logic
of things, opposes the same enemy.

The bourgeoisie and its ideologists (even if they beautifully call themselves
"anarchists") deny the universal nature of the conditions for the struggle of the
proletariat, emphasizing the peculiarities of this or that situation.

The bourgeoisie is trying to impose on us the ground on which it can best defeat
us. In other words, the bourgeoisie allows the proletariat to "forget" that it
constitutes the only general class, and imposes on it the most convenient field
of confrontation for it. Thus, it can dictate the framework of the war to which
it directs us: the international united strength of the bourgeoisie against the
isolated actions of our class, limited to one area or another. Bourgeois politics
for the proletariat, social democratic politics keeps the proletariat of every
country within its borders, turning the "internationalism" of our class into
levies, petitions, parliamentary inquiries and "solidarity" through bank
transfers and supportive e-mails. This form of activity is not only completely
harmless to the bourgeoisie,

Anarchists are not interested in this kind of "solidarity" with the proletarians
(not the people) in Ukraine, but, on the contrary, in working together with them
to promote the same struggle, the same interests, the same common struggle
throughout the world. To this false "solidarity" we oppose real solidarity, which
is the result of a common struggle.

What to say in conclusion?

Someone needs to tell Wayne Price that the positions he takes (not just about the
war in Ukraine) are not anarchist but liberal. And the Anarchist Federation must
decide whether it should not remove the word "anarchist" from its name, as it is
completely inconsistent with the positions it occupies. Today, AF stands with two
legs in the camp of warmongers who support the mutual massacre of proletarians in
Ukraine in the name of defending imaginary democracy, national self-determination
and other concepts that are completely alien to the proletariat (and even more so
to anarchists).

And if the current military conflict spreads to the rest of Europe, won't AF send
our brothers and sisters to slaughter in the name of the same misguided and
essentially bourgeois ideology?

"Class War" and the Animilitarist Initiative

May 2023

https://aitrus.info/node/6084
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca