#WORLD #WORLDWIDE #INFORMATION #ANARCHISM #LIBRARY #News #Journal #Update - (en) #anarkismo.net: The Debate over Kropotkin on World War I - Its Lessons for Anarchists Today by Wayne Price (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

 There is a debate over the views of Kropotkin, the great anarchist, on the First

World War and on Imperialism in General. This shines a light on anarchists'
opinions of imperialism, national self-determination, and the current
Ukrainian-Russian War. ---- In 1914, World War I (then called "The Great War")
began, centered in the big countries of Europe. It was greeted with enthusiasm by
most of the populations of the warring countries. It was endorsed by most of
their socialist and labor parties and by their unions. Most of the leading
Marxist theoreticians took pro-war positions or were at best wishy-washy, not
wanting to break with the militaristic majority. Only a small section of
revolutionary Marxists opposed the war totally (including Lenin, Luxemburg,
Trotsky, and Debs).

Unlike the Marxists, most anarchists opposed both sides of the war, with the
significant exception of a small minority. This minority supported the Entente
(the Allies) against the Central Powers. It included the most well-known and
respected anarchist, Peter Kropotkin. Kropotkin (1842-1921) was widely regarded
as one of the "founders" of anarchism. Most of the anarchist movement at the time
was surprised and disappointed about Kropotkin's pro-war stance. Today,
anarchists still read his works and respect his contributions to our theory and
history. Yet, most who comment on Kropotkin believe that he was gravely mistaken
in his views on the war and agree with his anarchist critics from that time.

However, a few writers on anarchism have concluded that his views should be
re-examined and reconsidered. In the light of World War II and more current wars,
perhaps he was not so wrong after all, they suggest. (Kinna 2017; Ryley 2017)

This question may appear to be abstractly historical. But, as I write this, a
terrible war is raging between the Russian state and the Ukrainian people, with
the latter getting aid from the imperialist states of the U.S. and NATO. Wars are
also being fought in other countries around the globe. Imperialism, nationalism,
the exploitation of weaker countries by the rulers of stronger ones, and the
existence of a world capitalist market-all continue from Kropotkin's time to
ours. What attitude should revolutionary anarchists take toward these various
wars and conflicts? These issues were debated back then and are still
illuminating in our current conditions.

Referring to arguments over U.S. intervention in the Middle East and Central
Asia, Peter Ryley writes, "The issues that Kropotkin raised have not gone
away....The schism among anarchists in 1914 is not an historical curiosity; it is
a live debate." (2017; p. 50) I believe that Kropotkin was deeply wrong about
World War I. I agree with his critics then and now. But I think it can be
valuable to review the discussion.

The War

The war was an inter-imperialist conflict. This was not particularly subtle. On
one side was the British Empire, the Russian Empire, and the French Empire,
eventually joined by the Italian Empire and the Japanese Empire, and finally by
the United States of America. On the other side was the German Empire, the
Austrian-Hungarian Empire, and the Turkish Empire. The only one not officially
calling itself an empire was the United States. With its domination of Latin
America and the Caribbean and parts of the Pacific, it was hard to see it as
anything else.

To justify supporting one of the sides, it was necessary to find qualitative
differences among the empires. The German social-democrats pointed to a threat
from the cossacks and hordes of Czarist Russia which would destroy German Kultur.
Actually, Czarist Russia was a very authoritarian state, but it was weak by then
and on the verge of collapse-as it did under the pressures of the war. On the
other side, supporters of the Entente pointed to the ruling German junker class,
and the threat of Prussian militarism.

It is worth pointing out that the German monarchy, while quite authoritarian, was
not the same as the later Nazi regime. There was an elected parliament (the
Bundestag), even if generally powerless. Its largest party was the
Social-Democratic Party. True, the German rulers were more aggressive than the
British and French rulers, if only because the British and French already held
most of the world as colonies. They were the "have" imperialists. It was said
that the sun never set on the British Empire nor the blood ever dried. If the
rising capitalists of Germany, and the German state (the "have-not"
imperialists), were to expand now, they had to challenge the British and French,
they "had" to be the aggressors. This did not make the Allies more "peaceful",
just more satiated.

Kropotkin's arguments for supporting the Allies were rooted in fear of German
militarism. If the Germans were to win the war, he thought, it would set back
progress toward an anarchist transformation. He saw the horrors of the German
state, its military rulers, and its repressive bureaucracy, but he did not
distinguish between the state and the whole German nation, including its working
class. He had repeatedly denounced Marxism and statist socialism
(social-democracy) as reflecting German culture. Kinna writes of "Kropotkin's
antipathy for German social democracy and this conflation of all things German
with statism." (2017; p. 187) He saw the victory of libertarian communism as
requiring the victory of the "Latin" peoples over the "Germanic" peoples, and
therefore the victory of the Entente over Germany. He had a romantic view of
France. The French state had imprisoned him and then expelled him. Yet he saw
France as the mother of revolutions, the center of revolutions in Europe, and the
inspirer of revolution for Russia. It must not be conquered by the Prussian army!

Like Bakunin and other anarchists, Kropotkin had long supported the idea of
national self-determination. "True internationalism will never be attained except
by the independence of each nationality....If we say no government of man over
man, how can[we]permit the government of conquered nationalities by the
conquering nationalities?" (in Miller 1976; p. 231) He supported all national
movements against foreign oppressors, such as the Indians and Irish against
Britain, the Balkan peoples against Turkey, or the Poles against Russia.
Solidarity with the oppressed people did not mean anarchists should give any
political support to their leaders and rulers, their capitalists and landlords.
Kropotkin thought it was important to combine "economic" demands, such as land to
the peasants, with national demands.

In World War I, he applied national self-determination to the French, who had
been attacked, invaded, and partially occupied by German forces. He ignored the
difference in this case, that France was not an exploited and oppressed nation
but an imperialist power. It had its own colonies (the French state ruled about
15 % of the world). He ignored that France would do the same to the Germans if it
won the war.

During the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 (which culminated in the Paris Commune of
1871), Bakunin had urged the French to resist the invading Germans. But he
advocated this be done by forming revolutionary armies of workers and peasants,
unconnected to the French state and in revolutionary opposition to it. In the
years before the world war, Kropotkin had also advocated such a popular and
revolutionary armed defense of France against a German attack. Yet when the war
actually began, Kropotkin declared that it would not be possible to create such
forces in time. The only realistic way to resist the Germans, he declared, was to
support the Allied governments and their regular armies.

When the idea was floated of an end to the war through a negotiated compromise,
Kropotkin protested. (Riley 2017) A negotiated peace would only allow the Germans
to re-arm, he argued. Nothing would do but the complete and unconditional defeat
of the Germans.

In 1917, the first phase of the Russian Revolution broke out (the "February
Revolution"). Czarism was overthrown, and a more-or-less liberal "Provisional
Government" took power, balancing itself against the popular democratic councils
(soviets). Kropotkin returned to Russia. He continued to demand Russia's
participation in the war, even though the war was ruinous to the Russian peoples.
He advocated not anarchism but a constitutional republic, modeled on the
federalist U.S.A. That is, he called for a capitalist state. He did not only
oppose a Leninist type of authoritarian revolution, but any kind of further
socialist revolution. This was tied to his desire to continue the war.

In his history of the revolution, Trotsky was to sneer, "The superannuated
anarchist, Kropotkin...made use of the war to disavow everything he had been
teaching for almost half a century." (Trotsky 1967; p. 223) Unfortunately, it was
a fair criticism. (After the "October Revolution"-when the Bolsheviks took
power-Kropotkin did write public appeals to the workers of Western Europe to
oppose their governments' military attacks and quarantines of Russia.)

The Anarchist Response

Only a handful of anarchists agreed with Kropotkin. Although no more than about a
hundred signed the various pro-war anarchist statements, this did include some of
the most well-known such as Jean Grave, Charles Malato, and Paul Reclus.
(Woodcock & Avakumovic 1990) Besides the socialist-anarchists, the war was
supported by Benjamin Tucker, the leading U.S. individualist anarchist (then
residing in France). Anarchist-syndicalists had played a major role in building
the main French union federation, although it came to be dominated by apolitical
union bureaucrats. That union also endorsed the war while a group of
revolutionary anarchist-syndicalists, including Pierre Monatte, organized against it.

Most anarchists were not impressed with Kropotkin's view of the differences
between the two war camps. A number wrote responses. After a period of debate, he
and those who agreed with him split from the British anarchist journal Freedom
which he had once co-founded. Important essays were written by Errico Malatesta
(1853-1932). (Price 2022) He had worked with Bakunin and been a friend of
Kropotkin. He wrote, "Anarchists Have Forgotten their Principles," and
"Pro-Government Anarchists." (Malatesta 2014)

To Kropotkin's argument that the militarism of the Central Powers was
qualitatively different from the Allies, Malatesta wrote,

"Personally, judging at their true value the ‘mad dog' of Berlin and the ‘old
hangman' of Vienna, I have no greater confidence in the bloody Tsar, nor in the
English diplomats who oppress India, who betrayed Persia, who crushed the Boer
Republics; nor in the French bourgeoisie, who massacred the natives of Morocco;
nor in those of Belgium, who have allowed the Congo atrocities, and have largely
profited by them...not to mention what all Governments and all capitalist classes
do against the workers and the rebels in their own countries.

"....The only hope is revolution...." (Malatesta 2014; p. 382)

If the revolutionaries were too weak at that time to inspire a revolution, that
did not mean that they should therefore rely on the states. The states caused
this terrible war and, however it was resolved, so long as capitalism and the
state continued, this war would be followed by another, "a new war more murderous
than the present." (same)

If the anarchists were not able at this time to overthrow the states, at least
they should not strengthen them. They should stick to their values, their
program, and their principles and continue to be anarchists, preparing for an
eventual revolution. To Kropotkin this was a hopelessly unrealistic approach, but
Malatesta saw it as supremely realistic. It was what made him an anarchist.
(Turcato 2017)

Was Kropotkin Right After All?

In recent years some anarchists have come to re-evaluate Kropotkin's views on the
First World War. Malatesta and other anarchists had accused Kropotkin of
betraying anarchist principles. Kinna comments, "Whether or not Malatesta was
right to condemn Kropotkin's stance , his charge of treachery is difficult to
maintain: Kropotkin's position was consistent with his conception of
anarchism..." (2017)

It is confusing to begin this topic by not saying "whether or not" you believe
revolutionary anarchists should have condemned Kropotkin's pro-war opinions.
Similarly, Riley writes, "Whether Kropotkin was right or not about Wilhelmina
Germany remains contentious." (2017; p. 65) They do not actually say that
Kropotkin was correct to support the Allies but neither do they say he was wrong.
Without taking a stance on the first inter-imperialist world war, the rest of the
discussion is incoherent.

Kinna asserts, "Kropotkin's position was consistent with his...anarchism." But it
was his "conception of anarchism" which had been inconsistent. One strand of his
beliefs advocated revolutionary anarchist-communism. He opposed all states, all
capitalism, and all imperialism, which he blamed for modern wars. Not long before
the war, Kropotkin wrote that the real cause of war was "the competition for
markets and the right to exploit nations backward in industry." (in Miller 1976;
p. 225)

On another strand-another complex of ideas-he saw the Germany of his time as the
greatest threat to peace and freedom in Europe while romanticizing the French. He
did not distinguish between the national self-defense of an oppressed and
exploited people and an inter-imperialist war. He denied the class conflict
within Germany and other imperialist nations, underestimating the possibility of
revolution.

These two strands of Kropotkin's "conception of anarchism" could co-exist for a
long time, so long as there was peace (more or less). His anarchist comrades
could ignore the second strand. But once war broke out in a massive way,
Kropotkin had to follow one or the other set of beliefs. He does not seem to have
wavered in adopting his pro-imperialist-war complex of ideas. This was consistent
with some of what he had believed for a long time-but it was a betrayal of the
revolutionary internationalist anarchist beliefs which he had taught generations
of revolutionaries.

The Imperialist Lie

Similarly, Ryley points out that almost no anarchists were absolute pacifists.
They almost all accepted the use of mass violence in appropriate circumstances.
"...War could be a just and necessary instrument of self-defense and popular
liberation. When Peter Kropotkin made his stand in support of the Entente powers
it was from this tradition, a precedent wholly in keeping with his anarchism."
(Ryle 2017; p. 62)

Except that anarchists believe that the claim of "self-defense and popular
liberation" is only true if raised by a revolution or a national liberation
struggle. Otherwise it is a lie raised by the imperialist powers. They are really
fighting for "markets and the right to exploit backward nations," as Kropotkin
had written just before the world war. To uphold this lie was not "in keeping
with anarchism."

Ryley buys into the imperialist lie when referring to World War II. He regards
this war as justifying Kropotkin's stance in retrospect. "Kropotkin and Grave
were a war too early for general acceptance." (2017; p. 64) He refers to
nice-sounding general principles such as "solidarity with oppressed peoples and
the victims of aggression...to support self-determination and democratic
aspirations...." (Ryley 2019; p. 65) and quotes Kropotkin that the Western side
of his war was "striving to achieve progress through the steady growth of its
inner forces, economic and intellectual...." (p. 64) Ryley declares, "they are a
precise description of Allied war aims in the Second World War." (p. 54) Such a
statement is preposterous, at least for an anarchist.

During World War II, many anarchists argued that by this time the only way to
stop the genocidal Nazis was to work with the Allies, at least in Europe. This
did not require denying that the Western "democracies" were imperialist nor that
Stalinist Russia was brutally totalitarian. Their real "war aims" (rhetoric
aside) was for the U.S. to replace Great Britain as the world's dominant
imperialism, while the British ruling class hoped to hold on to as much of its
empire as it could, and, for the Stalinist empire, to expand into Eastern Europe.
(For further discussion of anarchist views of the Second World War, see Price 2015.)

Ryley's other major argument is that Kropotkin had the only realistic program for
ending the war (supporting the side of the Allies until it conquered the Central
Powers). Malatesta's program of revolution was unrealistic. Following it, Ryley
charges, meant being passive as the war raged on, and giving de facto support to
the Germans.

"Malatesta had gone up the blind alley of abstentionism....They argued for social
revolution alone. It was not convincing....Denying the legitimacy of self-defense
by anything other than popular insurrection is to invite catastrophe...adopting
an impossible strategy...." (Ryley 2017; pp. 62-64)

What is remarkable about this statement is World War I did end through
revolution! First there was the Russian Revolution, which ended up taking Russia
out of the war. Then the German workers and soldiers overthrew the monarchist
state and ended Germany's participation in the war. Rebellions and insurrections
spread throughout Europe and beyond. The Allies "won" the war, but this would not
have happened without the collapse of the Central Powers due to revolution.
Malatesta's revolutionary program was far from unrealistic.

Unfortunately, the revolutions did not go all the way (with the ambiguous
exception of Russia). This was importantly due to the reformism of the German
social democrats and a lack of sufficient numbers of organized revolutionary
anarchists-who were following Malatesta's program. The failure of the revolutions
to go all the way to stateless, self-managed, cooperative community, led, as
Malatesta had warned, to "a new war more murderous than" World War I.

(The Second World War was also followed by a wave of revolutions and
near-revolutions in Eastern and Western Europe and Asia. These were almost
entirely distorted, misled, or betrayed by the Communist Parties, in one way or
another.)

Kinna does not compare Kropotkin's strategy for World War I with that of the
still-revolutionary anarchists. However, she makes it clear that she rejects the
program of revolution by the workers and their allies, as held by Bakunin,
Malatesta, Fabbri, Goldman, Makhno, Durruti, and so on. She describes this as
part of the "classical anarchist" tradition, which she regards as no longer
viable, if it ever was. Kinna does not actually present arguments for this
opinion (at least in this volume) but seems to take it for granted.

She knows that Kropotkin came out of this "classical" tradition and helped form
it. (See Cahm 1989.) Yet she emphasizes aspects of Kropotkin's thinking which fit
in with more gradualist, alternate-institutional, and non-revolutionary types of
anarchism ("new anarchism" and "post-anarchism"). For example, she points to his
work on voluntary associations being formed even within capitalist society.

Undoubtedly, the "classical" tradition of anarchism needs to be expanded, in
areas such as gender or ecology (although Kropotkin had an ecological outlook and
other anarchists of his time began to analyze sexual issues). However, I believe
that the fundamental goal of working class revolution remains valid. Since Kinna
does not agree, it is not surprising that she would not agree with the
revolutionary opposition to both sides in the First Imperialist World War held by
Malatesta and the majority of anarchists then and now.

Ukraine

Some anarchists argue that Kropotkin's fatal error was his support of national
self-determination and national liberation. This belief, they say, led him to
support the French and the Entente. Therefore, they conclude, anarchists should
not support national self-determination. They should not support the Palestinians
against the Israeli state, nor the Uygars against the Chinese state They do not
take sides between the Ukrainian people and the invading Russian imperialist
army. Whatever the arguments, this is an abandonment of anarchist solidarity with
the oppressed and exploited.

However, Malatesta, like Bakunin before him, also supported national
self-determination. Malatesta, who was so insistent on rejecting Kropotkin's
support of the Allies, had supported the Libyan Arabs fight against the Italian
attempts to conquer them, and had supported the Cuban workers and others when
they waged a war of independence against the Spanish. (See Price 2022) He could
tell the difference between an oppressed people which is waging war to prevent
domination and exploitation by an imperialist power-and a war among imperialist
powers, all trying to defend or expand their ability to loot oppressed peoples.

Kropotkin lost his way because he failed to make this distinction. Anarchists
today must be clear about it.

References

Cahm, Carolina (1989). Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism
1872-1886. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kinna, Ruth (2017). Kropotkin; Reviewing the Classical Anarchist Tradition.
Edinburgh UK: Edinburgh University Press.

Malatesta, Errico (2014). (D. Turcato, Ed.) (P. Sharkey, Trans.). The Method of
Freedom; An Errico Malatesta Reader. Oakland CA: AK Press.

Miller, Martin (1976). Kropotkin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Price, Wayne (2022). "Malatesta on War and National Self-Determination"
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-malatesta-on-war-and-national-self-determination

Price, Wayne (2015). "The Meaning of World War II-An Anarchist View."
https://anarkismo.net/article/28250?search_text=Wayne+Price

Ryley, Peter (2017). "The Manifesto of the Sixteen: Kropotkin's rejection of
anti-war anarchism and his critique of the politics of peace." In Matthew S.
Adams & Ruth Kinna (Eds). Anarchism 1914-18; Internationalism, Anti-Militarism,
and War. Manchester UK: Manchester University Press. Pp. 49-68.

Trotsky, Leon (1967). History of the Russian Revolution. Vol.1. (M. Eastman,
trans.) London UK: Sphere Books.

Turcato, Davide (2017). "Saving the future: The roots of Malatesta's
anti-militarism." In Matthew S. Adams & Ruth Kinna (Eds). Anarchism 1914-18. Pp.
29-48.

Woodcock, George, and Avakumovic, Ivan (1990). Peter Kropotkin; From Prince to
Rebel. Montreal/NY: Black Rose Books.

*written for Black Flag: Anarchist Review (UK)

---------------------------------------
Comments

1) "Self determination" by itself do not worth killing and being killed by Ilan
Shalif - ainfos.ca

In war and in peace - like while driving a car, being wise is more important than
holding justice. In class war wage slaves seldom take fire arm in hand and start
shooting on a vicious employer.
When a dominant capitalist state rule and exploit population in another region it
might be worth the taking of arms in hand and start killing and being in danger
of being killed depending on the circumstances.
For instance, no sane person will suggest starting a war of independence of the
Catalans from the rule of Spain.
Even in the case of Palestine when the Zionist colonialism of Israel is not just
applying a cultural suppression and exploitation but also a murderous
transferrist project, due to balance of powers, starting a war for self
determination will be a suicidal.
The differentiation between the wars and struggles between imperialist powers and
the wars and struggle of national/ethnic groups for self determination is valid,
but it is not enough.
In the case of Ukraine the war started by Russia and resisted by the Ukrainians
state was not for the exploiting of the Ukrainians people. It was part of the
imperialist conflict between the expanding US imperialism against the resisting
of shrink by the Russian one.

By simply yielding to the humiliating demand of Russia not joining NATO the
Ukrainians ruling elite could prevent the war. It can even now stop it immediately.

The protection of the Ukrainians state honer is not worth the endangering of ones
life and killing others and more so if you are anarchist.

2) The Issue is Not NATO but Russian Imperialism vs. the Ukrainian People  by
Wayne Price

Ilan Sharif makes the important point that when analyzing a war it is necessary
to look at the concrete situation, not just the abstract principles and general
background. Very true. While an uprising of the oppressed against their rulers is
always morally justifiable, it would be wrong in a situation where the oppressed
were likely to be quickly defeated by the rulers, with bloody reprisals.

However, it is just such concrete realities which Ilan gets wrong. There was no
real possibility of Ukraine joining NATO. There had been some talk about it and
the Ukrainian state would have liked to (for the realistic reason that it felt
under threat by Russia!!)-but several NATO states rejected the idea outright.
There was no chance of Ukraine becoming part of NATO, and this is *not* the
reason why Putin attacked.

The Russian rulers have wanted to expand Russia's domination at least to the
extent of the previous empire of the Soviet Union. Of course this was in the
context of world-wide great-power politics. But it was also an immediate conflict
with the Ukrainian people. Putin was quite specific about this. The Ukrainians,
he said several times, were not a real people and did not deserve to have their
own republic. He wished to incorporate the Ukrainians into greater Russia, wiping
out their language, their culture, their religion, and their self-determination.

The Ukrainian people are not fighting for "the Ukrainian state's honor." They are
fighting for their lives, their culture, and their right to determine their own
future (national self-determination). And virtually all the anarchists of the
Ukraine, Bylarusia, and Russia have supported them in this fight (without
supporting the Ukrainian ruling class, its state, or its NATO suppliers).

3) Ukraine was part of the Russian empire till the western initiated coup author
by Ilan Shalif

My be "There was no chance of Ukraine becoming part of NATO" or joining the Euro
block, but the 2014 coup shrinked the Russian empire and made the export of
petroleum/gas problematic.

For sure the Russian rulers have wanted to restore Russia's domination and dettar
other from splitting but the invasion was not supposed to significantly intensify
the exploitation and suppression of the Ukrainian wage slaves.

The invasion was an immediate conflict with most of the Ukrainian people, but
many of the Russian speakers of the east of the country were pro Russia.

Putin wished to incorporate the Ukrainians into greater Russia, promoting the
position of the Russian language and culture and restrict the self-determination
of the Ukrainians... (mainly of its elite). But, is that more life threatening
and impoverite than the war to resist it?

Millions of Ukrainians fled the country to evade the war. The will of the rest to
join the army was not huge.

The Ukrainian soldiers are conscripts - not volunteers. I wonder what would have
been the result of a pole before the war about resisting Putin in a war.

For sure Most the Ukrainians was and are against the invasion. For sure ALL the
anarchists of the world are against the brutal invasion, but taking arms in an
autonomous force or in the state army to kill or being killed in such a "self
determination war" my be "just" but is not wise.

p.s.

In my reading of the internet, most social war struggle anarchists (including in
ex soviet block) are on the side of "no war but the class war" and are against
participating in the war.

p.p.s

In hard time in Israel people joked that it will be wise to declare war on US, to
be defeated and conquered, and make US manage the local problems in return of the
lost "self determination".

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32683
_________________________________________
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