          D.7 Are anarchists opposed to National Liberation struggles?

   Obviously, given the anarchist analysis of imperialism discussed in
   [1]section D.5, anarchists are opposed to imperialism and wars it
   inevitably causes. Likewise, as noted in the [2]last section, we are
   against any form of nationalism. Anarchists oppose nationalism just as
   much as they oppose imperialism -- neither offer a way to a free
   society. While we oppose imperialism and foreign domination and support
   decentralisation, it does not mean that anarchists blindly support
   national liberation movements. In this section we explain the anarchist
   position on such movements.

   Anarchists, it should be stressed, are not against globalisation or
   international links and ties as such. Far from it, we have always been
   internationalists and are in favour of "globalisation from below," one
   that respects and encourages diversity and difference while sharing the
   world. However, we have no desire to live in a world turned bland by
   corporate power and economic imperialism. As such, we are opposed to
   capitalist trends which commodify culture as it commodifies social
   relationships. We want to make the world an interesting place to live
   in and that means opposing both actual (i.e. physical, political and
   economic) imperialism as well as the cultural and social forms of it.

   However, this does not mean that anarchists are indifferent to the
   national oppression inherent within imperialism. Far from it. Being
   opposed to all forms of hierarchy, anarchists cannot be in favour of a
   system in which a country dominates another. The Cuban anarchists spoke
   for all of us when they stated that they were "against all forms of
   imperialism and colonialism; against the economic domination of peoples
   . . . against military pressure to impose upon peoples political and
   economic system foreign to their national cultures, customs and social
   systems . . . We believe that among the nations of the world, the small
   are as worthy as the big. Just as we remain enemies of national states
   because each of them hold its own people in subjection; so also are we
   opposed to the super-states that utilise their political, economic and
   military power to impose their rapacious systems of exploitation on
   weaker countries. As against all forms of imperialism, we declare for
   revolutionary internationalism; for the creation of great
   confederations of free peoples for their mutual interests; for
   solidarity and mutual aid." [quoted by Sam Dolgoff, The Cuban
   Revolution: A Critical Perspective, p. 138]

   It is impossible to be free while dependent on the power of another. If
   the capital one uses is owned by another country, one is in no position
   to resist the demands of that country. If you are dependent on foreign
   corporations and international finance to invest in your nation, then
   you have to do what they want (and so the ruling class will suppress
   political and social opposition to please their backers as well as
   maintain themselves in power). To be self-governing under capitalism, a
   community or nation must be economically independent. The
   centralisation of capital implied by imperialism means that power rests
   in the hands of a few others, not with those directly affected by the
   decisions made by that power. This power allows them to define and
   impose the rules and guidelines of the global market, forcing the many
   to follow the laws the few make. Thus capitalism soon makes a
   decentralised economy, and so a free society, impossible. As such,
   anarchists stress decentralisation of industry and its integration with
   agriculture (see [3]section I.3.8) within the context of socialisation
   of property and workers' self-management of production. Only this can
   ensure that production meets the needs of all rather than the profits
   of a few.

   Moreover, anarchists also recognise that economic imperialism is the
   parent of cultural and social imperialism. As Takis Fotopoulos argues,
   "the marketisation of culture and the recent liberalisation and
   deregulation of markets have contributed significantly to the present
   cultural homogenisation, with traditional communities and their
   cultures disappearing all over the world and people converted to
   consumers of a mass culture produced in the advanced capitalist
   countries and particularly the USA." [Towards an Inclusive Democracy,
   p. 40] Equally, we are aware, to quote Chomsky, that racism "is
   inherent in imperial rule" and that it is "inherent in the relation of
   domination" that imperialism is based on. [Imperial Ambitions, p. 48]

   It is this context which explains the anarchist position on national
   liberation struggles. While we are internationalists, we are against
   all forms of domination and oppression -- including national ones. This
   means that we are not indifferent to national liberation struggles.
   Quite the opposite. In the words of Bakunin:

     "Fatherland and nationality are, like individuality, each a natural
     and social fact, physiological and historical at the same time;
     neither of them is a principle. Only that can be called a human
     principle which is universal and common to all men; and nationality
     separates men . . . What is a principle is the respect which
     everyone should have for natural facts, real or social. Nationality,
     like individuality, is one of those facts . . . To violate it is to
     commit a crime . . . And that is why I feel myself always the
     patriot of all oppressed fatherlands." [The Political Philosophy of
     Bakunin, p. 324]

   This is because nationality "is a historic, local fact which, like all
   real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance."
   This means that "[e]very people, like every person, is involuntarily
   that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. Therein lies
   the so-called national rights." Nationality, Bakunin stressed, "is not
   a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every
   nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself,
   to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary
   of the general principal of freedom." [Op. Cit. p. 325]

   More recently Murray Bookchin has expressed similar sentiments. "No
   left libertarian," he argued, "can oppose the right of a subjugated
   people to establish itself as an autonomous entity -- be it in a
   [libertarian] confederation . . . or as a nation-state based in
   hierarchical and class inequities." Even so, anarchists do not elevate
   the idea of national liberation "into a mindless article of faith," as
   much of the Leninist-influenced left has done. We do not call for
   support for the oppressed nation without first inquiring into "what
   kind of society a given 'national liberation' movement would likely
   produce." To do so, as Bookchin points out, would be to "support
   national liberation struggles for instrumental purposes, merely as a
   means of 'weakening' imperialism," which leads to "a condition of moral
   bankruptcy" as socialist ideas become associated with the authoritarian
   and statist goals of the "anti-imperialist" dictatorships in
   "liberated" nations. "But to oppose an oppressor is not equivalent to
   calling for support for everything formerly colonised nation-states
   do." ["Nationalism and the 'National Question'", pp. 8-36, Society and
   Nature, No. 5, p. 31, p. 25, p. 29 and p. 31]

   This means that anarchists oppose foreign oppression and are usually
   sympathetic to attempts by those who suffer it to end it. This does not
   mean that we necessarily support national liberation movements as such
   (after all, they usually desire to create a new state) but we cannot
   sit back and watch one nation oppress another and so act to stop that
   oppression (by, for example, protesting against the oppressing nation
   and trying to get them to change their policies and withdraw from the
   oppressed nations affairs). Nor does it mean we are uncritical of
   specific expressions of nationality and popular cultures. Just as we
   are against sexist, racist and homophobic individuals and seek to help
   them change their attitudes, we are also opposed to such traits within
   peoples and cultures and urge those who are subject to such popular
   prejudices to change them by their own efforts with the practical and
   moral solidarity of others (any attempt to use state force to end such
   discrimination rarely works and is often counter-productive as it
   entrenches such opinions). Needless to say, justifying foreign
   intervention or occupation by appeals to end such backward cultural
   traits is usually hypocritical in the extreme and masks more basic
   interests. An obvious example is the Christian and Republican right and
   its use of the position of women in Afghanistan to bolster support for
   the invasion of 2001 (the sight of the American Taliban discovering the
   importance of feminism -- in other countries, of course -- was surreal
   but not unexpected given the needs of the moment and their basis in
   "reasons of state").

   The reason for this critical attitude to national liberation struggles
   is that they usually counterpoise the common interests of "the nation"
   to those of a (foreign) oppressor and assume that class and social
   hierarchies (i.e. internal oppression) are irrelevant. Although
   nationalist movements often cut across classes, they in practice seek
   to increase autonomy for certain parts of society (namely the local
   elites) while ignoring that of other parts (namely the working class
   who are expected to continue being subject to class and state
   oppression). For anarchists, a new national state would not bring any
   fundamental change in the lives of most people, who would still be
   powerless both economically and socially. Looking around the world at
   all the many nation-states in existence, we see the same gross
   disparities in power, influence and wealth restricting
   self-determination for working-class people, even if they are free
   "nationally." It seems hypocritical for nationalist leaders to talk of
   liberating their own nation from imperialism while advocating the
   creation of a capitalist nation-state, which will be oppressive to its
   own population (and, perhaps, eventually become imperialistic itself as
   it develops to a certain point and has to seek foreign outlets for its
   products and capital). The fate of all former colonies provides ample
   support for this conclusion.

   As Bakunin stressed, nationalists do not understand that "the
   spontaneous and free union of the living forces of a nation has nothing
   in common with their artificial concentration at once mechanistic and
   forced in the political centralisation of the unitary state; and
   because [they] confused and identified these two very opposing things
   [they have] not only been the promoter of the independence of [their]
   country [they have] become at the same time . . . the promoter of its
   present slavery." [quoted by Jean Caroline Cahm, "Bakunin", pp. 22-49,
   Eric Cahm and Vladimir Claude Fisera (eds), Socialism and Nationalism,
   vol. 1, p. 36]

   In response to national liberation struggles, anarchists stress the
   self-liberation of the working class, which can be only achieved by its
   members' own efforts, creating and using their own organisations. In
   this process there can be no separation of political, social and
   economic goals. The struggle against imperialism cannot be separated
   from the struggle against capitalism. This has been the approach of
   most, if not all, anarchist movements in the face of foreign domination
   -- the combination of the struggle against foreign domination with the
   class struggle against native oppressors. In many different countries
   (including Bulgaria, Mexico, Cuba and Korea) anarchists have tried, by
   their "propaganda, and above all action, [to] encourage the masses to
   turn the struggle for political independence into the struggle for the
   Social Revolution." [Sam Dolgoff, Op. Cit., p. 41] In other words, a
   people will free only "by the general uprising of the labouring
   masses." [Bakunin, quoted by Cahm, Op. Cit., p. 36]

   History has shown the validity of this argument, as well as the fears
   of Mexican anarchist Ricardo Flores Magon that it is "the duty of all
   the poor to work and to struggle to break the chains that enslave us.
   To leave the solution of our problems to the educated and the rich
   classes is to voluntarily put ourselves in the grasp of their claws."
   For "a simple change of rulers is not a fount of liberty" and "any
   revolutionary program that doesn't contain a clause concerning the
   taking of the lands [and workplaces] by the people is a program of the
   ruling classes, who will never struggle against their own interests."
   [Dreams of Freedom, p. 142 and p. 293] As Kropotkin stressed, the
   "failure of all nationalist movements . . . lies in this curse . . .
   that the economic question . . . remains on the side . . . In a word,
   it seems to me that in each national movement we have a major task: to
   set forth the question [of nationalism] on an economic basis and carry
   out agitation against serfdom [and other forms of exploitation] at one
   with the struggle against [oppression by] foreign nationality." [quoted
   by Martin A. Miller, Kropotkin, p. 230]

   Moreover, we should point out that Anarchists in imperialist countries
   have also opposed national oppression by both words and deeds. For
   example, the prominent Japanese Anarchist Kotoku Shusi was framed and
   executed in 1910 after campaigning against Japanese expansionism. In
   Italy, the anarchist movement opposed Italian expansionism into Eritrea
   and Ethiopia in the 1880s and 1890s, and organised a massive anti-war
   movement against the 1911 invasion of Libya. In 1909, the Spanish
   Anarchists organised a mass strike against intervention in Morocco.
   More recently, anarchists in France struggled against two colonial wars
   (in Indochina and Algeria) in the late 50's and early 60's, anarchists
   world-wide opposed US aggression in Latin America and Vietnam (without,
   we must note, supporting the Cuban and Vietnamese Stalinist regimes),
   opposed the Gulf War (during which most anarchists raised the call of
   "No war but the class war") as well as opposing Soviet imperialism.

   In practice national liberation movements are full of contradictions
   between the way the rank and file sees progress being made (and their
   hopes and dreams) and the wishes of their ruling class members/leaders.
   The leadership will always resolve this conflict in favour of the
   future ruling class, at best paying lip-service to social issues by
   always stressing that addressing them must be postponed to after the
   foreign power has left the country. That makes it possible for
   individual members of these struggles to realise the limited nature of
   nationalism and break from these politics towards anarchism. At times
   of major struggle and conflict this contradiction will become very
   apparent and at this stage it is possible that large numbers may break
   from nationalism in practice, if not in theory, by pushing the revolt
   into social struggles and changes. In such circumstances, theory may
   catch up with practice and nationalist ideology rejected in favour of a
   wider concept of freedom, particularly if an alternative that addresses
   these concerns exists. Providing that anarchists do not compromise our
   ideals such movements against foreign domination can be wonderful
   opportunities to spread our politics, ideals and ideas -- and to show
   up the limitations and dangers of nationalism itself and present a
   viable alternative.

   For anarchists, the key question is whether freedom is for abstract
   concepts like "the nation" or for the individuals who make up the
   nationality and give it life. Oppression must be fought on all fronts,
   within nations and internationally, in order for working-class people
   to gain the fruits of freedom. Any national liberation struggle which
   bases itself on nationalism is doomed to failure as a movement for
   extending human freedom. Thus anarchists "refuse to participate in
   national liberation fronts; they participate in class fronts which may
   or may not be involved in national liberation struggles. The struggle
   must spread to establish economic, political and social structures in
   the liberated territories, based on federalist and libertarian
   organisations." [Alfredo M. Bonanno, Anarchism and the National
   Liberation Struggle, p. 12]

   The Makhnovist movement in the Ukraine expressed this perspective well
   when it was fighting for freedom during the Russian Revolution and
   Civil War. The Ukraine at the time was a very diverse country, with
   many distinct national and ethnic groups living within it which made
   this issue particularly complex:

     "Clearly, each national group has a natural and indisputable
     entitlement to speak its language, live in accordance with its
     customs, retain its beliefs and rituals . . . in short, to maintain
     and develop its national culture in every sphere. It is obvious that
     this clear and specific stance has absolutely nothing to do with
     narrow nationalism of the 'separatist' variety which pits nation
     against nation and substitutes an artificial and harmful separation
     for the struggle to achieve a natural social union of toilers in one
     shared social communion.

     "In our view, national aspirations of a natural, wholesome character
     (language, customs, culture, etc.) can achieve full and fruitful
     satisfaction only in the union of nationalities rather than in their
     antagonism . . .

     "The speedy construction of a new life on [libertarian] socialist
     foundations will ineluctably lead to development of the culture
     peculiar to each nationality. Whenever we Makhnovist insurgents
     speak of independence of the Ukraine, we ground it in the social and
     economic plane of the toilers. We proclaim the right of the
     Ukrainian people (and every other nation) to self-determination, not
     in the narrow, nationalist sense . . . but in the sense of the
     toilers' right to self-determination. We declare that the toiling
     folk of the Ukraine's towns and countryside have shown everyone
     through their heroic fight that they do not wish any longer to
     suffer political power and have no use for it, and that they
     consciously aspire to a libertarian society. We thus declare that
     all political power . . . is to be regarded . . . as an enemy and
     counter-revolutionary. To the very last drop of their blood they
     will wage a ferocious struggle against it, in defence of their
     entitlement to self-organisation."
     [quoted by Alexandre Skirda, Nestor Makhno Anarchy's Cossack, pp.
     377-8]

   So while anarchists unmask nationalism for what it is, we do not
   disdain the basic struggle for identity and self-management which
   nationalism diverts. We encourage direct action and the spirit of
   revolt against all forms of oppression -- social, economic, political,
   racial, sexual, religious and national. By this method, we aim to turn
   national liberation struggles into human liberation struggles. And
   while fighting against oppression, we struggle for anarchy, a free
   confederation of communes based on workplace and community assemblies.
   A confederation which will place the nation-state, all nation-states,
   into the dust-bin of history where it belongs. This struggle for
   popular self-determination is, as such, considered to be part of a
   wider, international movement for "a social revolution cannot be
   confined to a single isolated country, it is by its very nature
   international in scope" and so popular movements must "link their
   aspirations and forces with the aspirations and forces of all other
   countries" and so the "only way of arriving at emancipation lies in the
   fraternity of oppressed peoples in an international alliance of all
   countries." [Bakunin, quoted by Cahm, Op. Cit., p. 40 and p. 36]

   And as far as "national" identity within an anarchist society is
   concerned, our position is clear and simple. As Bakunin noted with
   respect to the Polish struggle for national liberation during the last
   century, anarchists, as "adversaries of every State, . . . reject the
   rights and frontiers called historic. For us Poland only begins, only
   truly exists there where the labouring masses are and want to be
   Polish, it ends where, renouncing all particular links with Poland, the
   masses wish to establish other national links." [quoted by Jean
   Caroline Cahm, Op. Cit., p. 43]

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD5.html
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD6.html
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI3.html#seci38
