We bring reflections on the reformist and militaristic tendencies in the
Czech anarchist movement from the pen of the membership of the Ostrava
Anarchist Federation, with which we agree in opinion. ---- After the
outbreak of the war in Ukraine, strange pro-war tendencies appeared
among some anarchists (and related leftists). Their defense consists in
the fact that they try to adapt anarchist ideas to the current political
context, on the contrary, they accused anarchism based on the original
social-anarchist tradition of sectarianism and dogmatism. If we look at
these positions (most often promoted by the AF) in more detail, we will
find that they contain glaring contradictions and are unsustainable in
the long term due to ideological inconsistency.
The first of the contradictions is the alleged effort to "listen to
local voices". But that would mean that the vast majority of Ukrainian
men are willing to run into the trenches in the interest of the state.
However, the reality is different. Millions of Ukrainians avoid
mobilization, 650,000 of them fled abroad alone. So shouldn't pro-war
anarchists listen to these voices in particular? And if the goal of
these anarchists is the defeat of Putin's empire by the methods of
conventional warfare, by this logic, shouldn't deserters be forced to
join the army? If yes, how to do it? Report deserters from state
authorities? If, on the other hand, participation in the army should be
voluntary, then how to supply enough men to the front? Should the AF
join a government recruitment campaign from the comfort of their keyboards?
The questions we ask are, of course, rhetorical and greatly exaggerated;
however, they show that taking reform positions entails insoluble
contradictions. As part of the "effectiveness" of the fight against
Putin's invasion, it must logically be followed by resignation to the
social revolution (which would be a record for Putin), silence about the
crimes of the Ukrainian state (this would also be a record for Putin),
or a "temporary" halt to criticism of the power hierarchy or the
exploitation of the working class. After all, any disunity of the
"democratic" camp strengthens the position of the enemy. Reformist
anarchism then knowingly or unknowingly falls into the false dichotomy
"you're either with NATO or with Putin". There seem to be no other ways
to stop the war machine.
This brings us to the second contradiction, which is how to fight war.
Some anarchists and anarchists believe that by sending money to build
war infrastructure, they will help the Ukrainian military win, Russia
will capitulate, and the war will end. This position is nonsensical for
several reasons. For example, the AF campaign, the goal of which was to
deliver an all-terrain vehicle to Ukraine, rather turned the spiral of
war than pouring sand into the gears of war. In the solidarity
collection, it was possible to collect 140,000 crowns, which is somewhat
suspicious in the Czech environment, where anarchism has a problem
collecting a few hundred for membership contributions of its own
organizations. As today's normal operation is struggling to make ends
meet at the end of the month due to inflation, the question is who
sponsored the campaign so generously. But let's imagine a hypothetical
situation - the movement finances a car that transports a few soldiers
to the front line, and within a few days the SUV ends up shot dead in a
ditch. What next? Another collection? When we realize that the war
industry swallows several million crowns daily on both sides of the
conflicts, does something like this even make sense given the financial
possibilities of the anarchist movement? Couldn't a hundred thousand be
put to good use? How about sending them to the Russian cooperative,
which thanks to this financial leverage burned dozens of recruitment
centers or derailed hundreds of trains with military material? Or to
support deserters on both sides of the conflict and show how senseless
it is to point a gun at people we have never seen in our lives, who have
done nothing to us, just because someone put us in uniform and ordered
us to? And what about financially supporting anti-government hackers who
will attack Russian or Ukrainian military servers? Let everyone answer
the question of which method of anti-war activities is more effective
and meaningful.
Let's imagine that a similar reformist proud anarchist movement existed
in 2003. These people would no doubt be sending the US military to Iraq
in all-terrain vehicles, because Saddam Hussein is a dictator and
suppresses human rights, and has invaded sovereign countries. George
Bush would certainly be rated as controversial, but at least a
pro-Western and democratically elected politician. Does that sound too
crazy to you? So how is it possible that we find ourselves in an
analogous situation today?
"I always thought people supported war until I found out some don't have
to."
- EM Remarque, paraphrased
Ostrava Anarchist Federation, November 2024
https://anarchiste.org/militarismus-nekterych-anarchistu-a-jeho-rozpory/
_________________________________________
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
Czech anarchist movement from the pen of the membership of the Ostrava
Anarchist Federation, with which we agree in opinion. ---- After the
outbreak of the war in Ukraine, strange pro-war tendencies appeared
among some anarchists (and related leftists). Their defense consists in
the fact that they try to adapt anarchist ideas to the current political
context, on the contrary, they accused anarchism based on the original
social-anarchist tradition of sectarianism and dogmatism. If we look at
these positions (most often promoted by the AF) in more detail, we will
find that they contain glaring contradictions and are unsustainable in
the long term due to ideological inconsistency.
The first of the contradictions is the alleged effort to "listen to
local voices". But that would mean that the vast majority of Ukrainian
men are willing to run into the trenches in the interest of the state.
However, the reality is different. Millions of Ukrainians avoid
mobilization, 650,000 of them fled abroad alone. So shouldn't pro-war
anarchists listen to these voices in particular? And if the goal of
these anarchists is the defeat of Putin's empire by the methods of
conventional warfare, by this logic, shouldn't deserters be forced to
join the army? If yes, how to do it? Report deserters from state
authorities? If, on the other hand, participation in the army should be
voluntary, then how to supply enough men to the front? Should the AF
join a government recruitment campaign from the comfort of their keyboards?
The questions we ask are, of course, rhetorical and greatly exaggerated;
however, they show that taking reform positions entails insoluble
contradictions. As part of the "effectiveness" of the fight against
Putin's invasion, it must logically be followed by resignation to the
social revolution (which would be a record for Putin), silence about the
crimes of the Ukrainian state (this would also be a record for Putin),
or a "temporary" halt to criticism of the power hierarchy or the
exploitation of the working class. After all, any disunity of the
"democratic" camp strengthens the position of the enemy. Reformist
anarchism then knowingly or unknowingly falls into the false dichotomy
"you're either with NATO or with Putin". There seem to be no other ways
to stop the war machine.
This brings us to the second contradiction, which is how to fight war.
Some anarchists and anarchists believe that by sending money to build
war infrastructure, they will help the Ukrainian military win, Russia
will capitulate, and the war will end. This position is nonsensical for
several reasons. For example, the AF campaign, the goal of which was to
deliver an all-terrain vehicle to Ukraine, rather turned the spiral of
war than pouring sand into the gears of war. In the solidarity
collection, it was possible to collect 140,000 crowns, which is somewhat
suspicious in the Czech environment, where anarchism has a problem
collecting a few hundred for membership contributions of its own
organizations. As today's normal operation is struggling to make ends
meet at the end of the month due to inflation, the question is who
sponsored the campaign so generously. But let's imagine a hypothetical
situation - the movement finances a car that transports a few soldiers
to the front line, and within a few days the SUV ends up shot dead in a
ditch. What next? Another collection? When we realize that the war
industry swallows several million crowns daily on both sides of the
conflicts, does something like this even make sense given the financial
possibilities of the anarchist movement? Couldn't a hundred thousand be
put to good use? How about sending them to the Russian cooperative,
which thanks to this financial leverage burned dozens of recruitment
centers or derailed hundreds of trains with military material? Or to
support deserters on both sides of the conflict and show how senseless
it is to point a gun at people we have never seen in our lives, who have
done nothing to us, just because someone put us in uniform and ordered
us to? And what about financially supporting anti-government hackers who
will attack Russian or Ukrainian military servers? Let everyone answer
the question of which method of anti-war activities is more effective
and meaningful.
Let's imagine that a similar reformist proud anarchist movement existed
in 2003. These people would no doubt be sending the US military to Iraq
in all-terrain vehicles, because Saddam Hussein is a dictator and
suppresses human rights, and has invaded sovereign countries. George
Bush would certainly be rated as controversial, but at least a
pro-Western and democratically elected politician. Does that sound too
crazy to you? So how is it possible that we find ourselves in an
analogous situation today?
"I always thought people supported war until I found out some don't have
to."
- EM Remarque, paraphrased
Ostrava Anarchist Federation, November 2024
https://anarchiste.org/militarismus-nekterych-anarchistu-a-jeho-rozpory/
_________________________________________
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
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten