lhc tfltt 1 l11 JIIPJtiHmmf tOfH 1 ffiiPf.! th• IHlll tJna l l t h f' tl\ll flfl

•! I '"•tl! l • 1 ~; vr•r.) ~ l f'n r · it mu ~ l n1t J(n t oward ~ co n s t ilul ir11<( a" "~rttf fiA(~d t . It •; l ;q,~, ~ ·· t n "'anf•.; lhP ~1nt · 1n.l f (' Vnlut ion thr• l iiJ(:h If.,-.

tn 11111 , \l t n n ''' ntw nat ••u•nl S t ; dt~~. 1\nar, · hi s tc; r..-.fuRr to pnrl H . tfltti P

Ill fllllt •l ll"l lllu ' ' " '"" rrllnl ::; lhry pnrt u · ipnt r i" t • lu• :•: rrord~; wht 1 h m') ,, , ,.1,) n n t IH rnvnlvPd In n a •t onn l lit•f"'r··atinr- s lr•uo~ l ,.! ;.

lbP •; l1ug ~l •. ~rtu ~ ; l o.; prr"' :u l I n t'H inhl i R h f'f ' OI\nmic· , p'llil i c al nfld "H"• inl ~~ ~ru t Iliff •; 111 IIH~ lth<· ral f't t lrrrtiiJI if•R hn ~rd o n fr•d £' r·nl1•-: l arpf

I rl•• • r t ' '' t ;lft 1'' ''' ' tt • lf · "':. . "

1\I.HHI~l III!NANNC J I ' 17R.

l'ttt !.; •mpnrlafll pa•phlf'l nttc-,.pls to df•vc-lnp l UI anar('hisf tflft • ffllll l tl ft:\1 jo..;f fJO ~O II inn On fftf"' ('Vf" r pr('~(• n( r("nl ity o f nnf il)naf ltlu • tal 1 0 11 !4 1 ,.,,t~lr o..; and I h(" nat 1onal qiH~~ t ion . Widf' rnnli(iuJ.t lfl I hr-lnJ • t l !; 11 tovr r •-; f"rtnn intr-rnal •n l n n1nli Hm In a 1 rilrqta r uf of'tl;ttfl M #ti" X I H I !wi,...WH lh<" pamphl f"' l ~tr · gtH~s that aunr·e hi s l. s '4 1.uul,f

!-; uppnrl nat 1onal I d lf' r· at ion }; I ruftli(IPR lft qofnr n ~ lhc• y .uC" Waf~ P d lty and rnr th r opprpsqrd c la R!:t, ... ~ , and thnl th f" nnt ionnl qur> R I !(HI <·ar 1

onl) ~~~ ~ r po.;o l v,.-. d hy thf' frf'(' R a~;•.;ociafion of pPopfrH O'l i \

I dtP rlar l:tH and ff'drrall ~d ha s i R. With hnl.h llrit ish find ,. ,..('C" III SO IJTif 1\ I· III CA N 1111 •·od111 I 1on .

I N'I"~: III•!:TFil " WAN "I Ill KNIJW MOll~: 01! C;t•:T I NVOI.VICIJ? Wr!lf"' I n u: • • tl ltn t k s ltP<' I Ahurt1on o.;

I' . fl. llo ~ !i I 1 Ci 'i l{n P •tt • u r

.lo hnrtfiP ~ hllt p.(

So n t h f\ r r ,, . " .

w. ~ I .' IIJY :, lari>(P vnrif"ty o f annrchist nnd other rnrli e nl mrdia nnd art· al• · n 1n vn lv('d 1n 1u · t1vf'ly build1ng 1\ r(·vn l ul.iounry a11nt~ • · h1 q l iiUlVf••t • n I •

""'''' tlf ' Vt•'r hr rr· t·r unt i I wr ihf"'rl\lf' nur· Rr- IVf'R hy J.Ciodu\1 so<" lttl ,~ , ... vulullon.

Please Notes The views expressed within thls publication are not ne c essarily those ot the m~mbers ot the Ba ck ~treet 1\bortlon~ col lec t lve . If yc"• feel you'd like to discuss any ot the !~sue s within this ~lnP, we feel cPrtaln th~t the rrtltors will bP happy to hear your views.

4NARCHISM AND THE iVATIONAl LIBERATION STRUGGLE

alfredo m. !Jon~;; · ··

II OW 'I'U ltEAll ANO HEMEMUEit '1'111 S I'Mil'll LE'I': ****·~·~*~****~*~*****~*~~*+~~*~*+~*~*++~~4~·*~ **~*+~f · ~~·~ ~ ~~·*

l!a \~ ,\Ci l! L' \ t• l ' l 't_·Hd " l 'rl! Hp!J ! , • t I il\v li11 S u 11l : l d fltid ~ ·- • l ll '~; c• l f' lJVbSt.·d t.h Jh lt i 11 L'lll..i l t . .':::i~':") d v t r1 i I ~ d 1\ _• h jJi:t ~ t. ·~~ l tl l .t t !d t lt v l t .._ .,, ' '

gJ\l: ''l' , \Ji u_:;t...' lit ~ · • · IJ•• _, ... , ,, ... . ,,. , . ,. ,., , ... ! lli l·~,ll~ll . 1 11 l li l l l • l '·''' 't ' I, J .._·. U ti! : I V fii1 1J ,\Ul l !'; ttl ' ( /l ' l l t l llti J t.· l llt l..•.-. l ,, ( hi, , t\ h d .:-• ~ , , j J'•

'I Il l:'' ~ ... t. \,_ i:i_ :-, -~ s l L' I ):-> \. I t I l . I I ( I I . l l ' ·' I I I t I u l .:. t ::::. I I ·' I .... "- ' 'l ' I II I I .' ,., , d~,._• r ::i l .:~r,d, Llt1d . l~.. ., , · / ;. , -~· H,, · ud. , 1 1- Lc~t t~tt ...., ~ - ·id:

I I I J i 'S I S l '( ll l I ,, , , I Ill , ., ,, ,,, , t I \ Il l ,,, ,, J ,, _,, 1\ I '• ' ~ · . I I, I

t ~ ) i ll'(ll"ll lg l/J J::; Il L lltl it d, l t·<td •<11 / .\ lit•,: 11 ::. 1 J ' di ' <-~S I ' .tj · l• \1 • ~· 1 I I Jr '

U ld. : t1ill ~ qu u l v .:.:> ~ : ~ \ Jlt ' l li•v Iii ~ ! J' .ll " d ~ t ·.t [d• v r" tli ~_.· [• ._ tuq d.l~ I

il !:» t.· JI' 1/ li"l SJ\,•:.:, ) •I ll r lll lJ\t... " [ \ J c..•h l.J I h!J , tl i:;:;. l t t... ' IIIH, !-3 . 11 ·1.

(JJ I H.. · ·. L, " ~. l ~ llll,, t ltl ' l) tl g "lt lit \.' j ) it /llf d.l....-1 I •) V ii I ~ I l ' .td i I t S I'· ~· I I I .I I lilt ' ._,, . ~·< I • '· j •< •l ' d~ \ " ,IJ• II' I [j I I· I ' -, h ' ·' ·' U ll h It , \ I I ,, , , \ I ':> ll ll l• " I I I

<tit•! J l••l!JI :.. ... llt'li iS llt . t • l t , ,, , .. , . tl• t / . t l ,, i1 uh tl •, ·~ ... l ' lit \ ,, ~,·t J ., t

I I ; II L.h t ·v :.i ·l l /11 · J !I ~ I. li te.. ' J •.t.ttjJ!tl, · t IJ 'o... rll t :.;, t . 11 t t ... . 1 1 11 ~ 1.

t i! J. I < illl ill t .::. hl t . tl :o vc· Ju \ , , l• v t lc t II IIJ •n J\o~i ll ~•t' llt v ll ~• · 111 t •l•

1 ·~ ·I '; I ~ l ' i l j J / J • ' I i I I' l I lt . I I \ 'I It I I' I ll ' I 1 1\ ,1 I c.. · I " I I Ill . ' i I ol \ tl I 1\ ,

1111 ::,!, L ...LI -··~· I Jl.v I ·-• \ , J ' I l ~~ , j .._, ld J o~ _.., , · IJt l ' lt · "o... d 1 I \ , , , I, 111 ,

IJ 11 ,\ 1 •'I J " u h l r 1 :. t[ , , . 1 , 1 :..~. .\ • •I I • J,_ , L J, ,

( j, I I'/ , , \ .. ' I, I hI. I I I II • 111...; . \'I I tl . 11 . 1 !t • \ 1 0

1\ l • • • r , J. , ,), , , I, I I , ..... h I L. t I I, ,, . I ' tCUidli ~·' •', I ,

• • ~ I 1 • , i I t : I I • J J ll o 1 1 I I· . 11 ' " 111111• 11! • • lit 1 J,.., . j •. t n qd t It I .

l l i I

' .-.. Jt oJh

I ~ I ~ I ' J ( ~ 1 ,,, I h (_' ' .... I I '\. II I d I I' I ,, .., ' I j i t Ill I j I· I t..' t I u ·' 'j I I I r I I ("' r ) I I !t t..." ltl IJ<J h I ~! l " t ' .tl .l i I I 11 t I t t ~ h .:.t ! li t \< ' (. ' j 01 1 l li.l\ "t.• d I I I vdd I I

I <~11, nl .~u ut llt L'

t.! i :::~<.tg t 'et_· h ' 1 t I! ·: j U ti I ' u h ' lt I i._ r e· J

jJdlltphl..-• 1. hlt d l t!td .'v ii lil\l.:' cdl t.) lll it ' hl •. tt d u ,, ., ., ,,

JJu )"U tl Lil 111 k Li1 ~ tl '"h .::ll tl1 t' !Jtlllt}..dtit· l 1 " l·l ~ tlt. ' !=> t" !lc:J s I I I t- I j d lllj "I I ~ . I ' . ,, " II g (,_' d I h o...:· h ' (_t ~ 1 It u t :- l) I [ 1 It I II L

Ill liti S h<...t.~ l•dillplll ..... ·l :::. I Jc...•t"t..l ll\l ~ ol , . J ~_•._t ~ u r · t-· { 1,) J "t '._t . l , ~V Ill o...'L I J !II b ( ,_;

l. t.lil\ ~ tl•tnd, dttd IL' dV It ~vu ~ l r~la·lltlt t ~ .1 ~-; 1\ v ll .

/

\I I' redo M. Bonanno '' Anar·chisrn and the National LilH! r·ati o n Str·uggle"

"' 1\rwrch ismo, no. 7 (197u)

S t-co nd ~:ng I ish e d iLion ~uur·Lh r e ~rinL by \I fa Gr· a fica Sgr·o i V ia S.M. Catania 87 1:aLania

I La I y.

fo r 1\ralach Dubh Edition s n o . 1

1981 IICM Box 7177 LoruJon.

r r·an s lal e d by J e an We ir.

Soul h Afri can e dition 1991 l ntr·od u c tion and explanaLor·.Y...Sl!illwLes added ( L. V J

Nu co pyr· ight: may b e freely r· c printe d or JJhotosta LL <" d i n it :> l~ IJ L i l' i ty.

INTRODUCTION TO THE SOUTH AFRICAN EDITION

'l'hi~ pomphlet re(Jr·esent.s an uLLcmpl to d e v e lop an a nar·chist. inler·nttLioualisL sla.r,ce on th e evt:l" pr·e!:)e nt and e v e r· co nlrov e rsiaJ i;;;;ue of t.he uational ldler·aLion ;; Lruggl e (NLS), and, mor·e br·oadly, Lhe "national que;;Lion" iL;;ell'. \ol e ca u br·oadJy under;;l.und Lh e NLS Lo mean a ;;t.euggl e uguinsl. a relat.ionshiv or explo iLul.i on aud dominati o n iuvolviug u NATI ONAL gr·oup. Su c h a sl1·ugg l e i;; o f uhviou;; i wpor·La.n ee l.o us as unat~c h i st.s, because we are opposed t u u I I oppr·cs!:iion, and b e li eve that. it. must bt ~ end e d lJy r·<.! VOiut ionary acliou.

'l'h e Lopit...:s co v ered by Bonanno r·ange fr·ow interna l c olonial isw, i lnJ,.Je r· iali s u,, c lass identity, Lu inc isive cr itiques of' ce rtain Milrxi .st pusitiu11s on this i ssue. However, Lwo waiu ar·guwcnts are nu Je iu thiH Lexl..l'ir~tly h e argue ~i l.hat it o nly r·c volul.iuu, ba!-Jcd uo t jt,(~ l"t . ar·ia n 11ud fedt~ r · ul i s t. :-; L,·u" : l.urt.~ s, cu u uua.k e fHl Hsib l e I h<! fr·ee

H.!i. :uciutiun ul' huwan groups, l . lu:t·\:t.y ~•u lving Ltu! ual. aunal ~ au c:tl.in u.

Th ~~ h e contra~t s to certain Ma.r· xi~L po~il.ions.

Seco nd I y • and fur wor·e i lUpor l.ant. f or our· pur·po~es, Bonuouo uu.tk es the c usc thaL anarc hisl.-s s h o uld fully suppurt. 111.1Liuual lih( .'/' t.J tioll stru!{gles ( ie. against imper·ial ism n.rul irJI.erru.JJ co l o ni ;.J/ i s m) insof'lJt' as t.h e y ;;;rc t.lll~ struggles of' t.h e oppressed c ii.J sses (wur k. t"·rs and JICiJ.SI.JIIts) t.hcws(~/ve.<;:. 'l'hi~; i .s lH ' <"a. IHH: dil'l'cr· e rat. (; la H:H.:H wil .hiu Lhc OplJl'eH~ed Jlat.iun havt.~ di rr\ : l'\! UL intcr·et>l .s aud L ht.! l "e f or·(• a l : ;o l...'ft d gual:; wil.hi•• t.h e NLS. That. of t.h e rwt.iollul as pir·a ut. capit.a l ist. - c um

pul it.i~..: iura c l ass i~ to ex ploit. and doruiuatc th e ir· compal.riot..s. 'l ' hi .s i s vbv i ous ly no so lutiura a.L all f or th e oplJr·e~sed ~. ~ la. !-i!:iCS.

Whal Bonanno is p o inting to i s t.hul NLS can assume u var i e ty of f u r·ws: r·anging fr·om r·evu lul. ionar·y c lass s t.r·uggle agairt~.it. u aliona l uppr·es:;iu u, aim1ug a.l. t.tH : in !::i LiLuLi o n n f un a.nar·chist. socie ty, Lu l.i

nationalist {l; luss a ll iauce ) f orm, typicn.lly conce r·n e d with fanning a nat.iunal sta L e . This, way t.J c t.h c t.Jivision of an o ld s lul. t...: into sever·a l u e w o n es ( :_t s in Cz.echoslovukiu ), t..) f ' Lhc reshaping o f an o lc..J stal.e inl.o a n e w fono (a;; in Soul.h Afr·ieu), t.uL whaL e v et· Lhe for·w o f Lhe n ew sta L e its function i.s that o f all stales: Lo serve t·uling ~, ; la ss iul. e rcsLs.

A s it stands, the puurphlcl. ha,; ouly one l' eal pr·obl e m. Although Bonannu r·c p e utedly r·c f e r· s t. o "nxploit.ulion", 11 0 me nti o n whal.socvc r i s to LH:! found of "dowinu.t.ion". Yc L us anl .. u·c l1isLs, we ur·c no t Wt! r·cly

o pvo .scd to "exploitation" but J.H .. H¥ct· ,·eluLion.s Lhcm~e lv e.s . It is preci;;ely t.hi;; LhaL disLin~uishes us frow oLher social iHI.;;, and iL is p•·ec iscly for Lhis •·ca;;o n l.lral we favour federalist. and

it...erl.urian forw .s of or·guuisution.

BuL Lhe puwphlel. is ;;ti ll c lea•· ly highly •· e l evaul t o Soulh Afri ca . Fir·sLJy, Hlaek p eop l e have l o ng b ee n engaged iu whal might be c onceptual i~ic d a.s a nati o nal lrhc t·ut ion struggle against post -co lonial wlrit. e se LLie•· ism o r· " eo loniuli;;m of a Hpecial Lype" (i e . Sout h Afr· i ca, allhou~~~~ indcpcudc nt, •·c l.utus wiLhiu itse lf l.he features uf Whit e cu loraiali s m) SccoruJiy,sinc(.: l.h e u nd o f Lht. ~

Second \olorld \olar aL Least. , nal.ional i s m ha ;; Lhe p•·imur·y fur·w Lak c rr by r·e;; i;;Lunce Lo Apartheid - CapiLali;;u, ( see O 'Meara in M . T. Mur· r·uy ( e diLor· ) South Afri c an Capitalism and lll tH: k l 'u !Jti ca l Oppos itiun, esp. pp. 389 - 392). nati o n a li s m i s exeurpljfi e d in lh E· p o lili cs o f Afr·i ca n National Con~r· ess (AN C ), l'u11 Al'• · i vunisl. Co ng1·es:; (I' AC ) "'"' eve n Sout.h African Cu uamuni st.. PurLy (S ,'\CP}; t.h < ~ S ,\ C I ) tH ~ I it ~\'t.'S 1 h a l a "nationaL d e rn oc r · a.Li ~ r~..:voltll i o n" 11.111 ::> 1 La · a c h il'\/t.'U hl · f' u 1· 1. ' ~ · Ia : ;~.; r·cv o l~aLiu11 c ur~ Lakt. ~ plac ,· . {l'r"l' v tuu s l y , Hli1 l· l.;. 11 ;d r ~.) rJ<il i :; m \-. t .;

l a l'g c ly l :unfincd t. ~,J UI.L c k ini ~ ~ JI ~·, tual ~:i .- u,d 1' '- ' 11 ) j , •l : ~ lll l'SS IIh~ ll).

1\ r•d finally, l. l• c imp v rt ;u ·, ... : L' •Jf a ~._ · Ja .sB (Jt.: r·.spcc Ljv e u u nalJ o nal .; lt ·u gg l l· .trJd nal.iunHii ::-; m i s in c r<'a s irq~ l y o bviou s as t!1 e <' UI Iftlr y III U'v\~S , Uy lll t..:U U !-i o r Lhv "r · t. ' f ni' Ul " pcr · lud, int.u a ~;ll. uHIIOII Wlll ' l ' t. ' lhv wajurity of Blac k p Ct.Jp lc an .. .! l,·f't 1.•ut o f lh t.~ ''ra <· w· Suulh .\f, · t ~: a .. , whil .t:>L at th e same lime u s: mall ~ lit e o f Blac k WUII~t: r·s , polttivtun s ,

busin e .ssmen, profess i o nal s , ano eve n s kill t.:: d, of'Ll' n uraiuui st~ d B l .: h : h. (mal e ) wor ker·,; ar·e ub;;ort.ed into Lite t.ar· e ly c ltan~ e d s lt ·lll: illr· es ul' Sl.al.e and cap ital i e . th e \olhiL c ruling c lass ( see Mon· i s , F e br·uar·y 1993, in Work iu Progress no.H7, pp. fi - 9). This is a clear c a;; c or c lass inL e r·c HLs and division!:> shu.tt.et· ing the "nuliou 11

, Jt wi gh t b t..• worth noting that the Whit e nation i s al.so l'r·a('Luriug in cla.s .s IJnt.:.s a;; th e \olhit e upper c la ;;;;es wiLlrdi" u w f• ·o m \olhiL e WOI"ker· :; th e privileges ( eg . jol.J r' <:~ Sel"va.tio n, high wages) LhaL u.sed t u lJuy th e a c 4.uiesceuc c uf the latt e r

What. f ol l o w s i ti an aLLi~ mpL t.o ex tend Oonanr•o' s unuly~is lu th e pr·oOleot!:> of hui lding un r e vulut.i o uury ana.r · .. · hi s t UI VV<" tu t.·nt. Ttteoret.ical c larity Is an ( ' sscnl iul pact uf' thi s l n~->k (s, : ~.· Ot ·:•l l.• c· ll

Uu/Jh JJref'ace in thi s pam~Jhl e t.) . .So l et. u .s <' X,uuin t' t.he r·, : lnlt\JII.:::th lp b etwee n nat.iou a l isw and. c lus s c urt..! l'ully.

We ruust. rt;.! cog:ui se two factor s. Fir· .s t.ly, u!::i nn«rchisl.s Wt.:> wu s l . r~ecog niti e l .hat nati o nal oppre.t:>sio n ik e r·a c isru, sex ism eL...:.) we an.s Lhu.l. .spe c ifi c !icct. ion s lJr fr ·act..io u .s within Lhc upJ.JC't..~sse d c l tt.s sv.s urc c.JoulJ!y u ppr(.•ssed : boLla b(:c uti.St.~ uf lh( ~ il"' t..· la ss pu s il i~ln und l i..S il

national ily. Thr ee p oi nt s follow . J.'ir ·.st., this mean s thul wtthtll t.hl"! o ppr·es.sed c l ;_.tsses (whi c h Uf'\~ mul I i nu.Li u nul) ~, ; t. ~ rl . uin gr-uup .::::; ar · t •

.sulJjccl. Lo r · " ~ lut . i LH l s of oppr ·<·.ssi l ) fl. Se~. ~ t..)nd, lH~t'HtA!H ' nll.l i~l iiHI Oppr·es~iun flUS it.S OWit indep(~fldt:"' lll . l't. ~ Uiil.y (fr· l)UI , · ( uss U }'lJI'CS~ iUII etc .) and i !:; obviuu~ly not. confined t o uny o ne ~ : lu ss, il . (ltk c ut.he1· non c lass oppres !::i ion .s eg. , .. uce e tc . ) t. :un and due s l•r·ovidt.:! the lnts i s for cross c las s allia.nc<:H '" : lass (which ace ra u l tn th"· I ,H ,~ lt • ctu inlt..: l'es Ls o f' all c l l t .s.se.s ). Thir·d, it Wt. ~I Ht.S that l . h c un1ty d f lht ·

oppressed c lasses canraul be asstuut·d: l.hal tlu~ y mlty l H • ca~~i l y arul deeply divided .

Sccoudly,we wu .s L n ot L e bl1od l u I h P f at · I l .h a t uut ao n a l i :iut

r· e all.y does give peopl e in l.h p o ppr·csse d c l asses ~;o rue l . hing. " Thi s ' s oaoct.hing:' is idenl ity, pr· id(. · , ~t f'- ''-' 1 ing lJf '- ~ t)lllUHJuily aCid so ltda.r· it.y l.I.Ud u r co ur·se physJ,;al St' lf dt • l"t ' ll l.' t'" ill IIH· ,. , H . t' uf Vt.' I ' Y

f ' f!al oppresHiun Class War ·, llnf'int .•; h ( ·d IJu ~; in,· .~;s, pp . ~)(), l !)(i '/). And nu.Lioualisau (ul su c all, .. d "t•t . hrt t\ · it y ") ~ ·a H pr·o vtth· H vt.·r·y e ff ec tive pr· irt C I(•I e of \)l'gaui!>ll"q .. ~ f' ,~Jr · ~.;'-·1. · 11 ~HIIll glllll:; •lllll Ut.t l l · l · ia l

bene fits for · wemL,er·s of all , : l.t~->~it. ' :; i11 vu l v 4·d ( :;.\· l · N . 1 ' h.t ~ '. a11 c·f . 11.,

l'o /itic s a nd So c iety in Co ntemporary Africa, Chap te r 3; a lso Ne l s on Ka s fir, in Kohli ( e ditor), Siate and De v e l opme nt in th e Th i rd Wo rld.) . Ill South Afri c a , i\fr· ikane r naLionaJ i s m was not. o nly ~ ; upp o r · Ll ~ d l') Wh i t.c / \fc-ikan c r fa r mers, lradc r s , profcs s jonaJ }; , and IICi dll i.. : i e r ·~ .; , UuL at ::l o b y Whit e work c r·s b ec au se ll ~.; lH . .:c css fu l l y ;Ld d r·c ssl·d th e i r· po v e rty , OIJpr-c ss iun a s 1\fr i kancr s ( mo s l se mi ~ and

· ' " ·" 'I I L· d 1\' hr t,• :, we n : ,\ fr · ikanc n ; ) , and \ c r·y r·ca.l fear s of Black ' " "'": ri. I UII "' L i re j v l> war ·k c L c l c . ( s ec L.. Callini. c o s , 1!)93 , A Plac e '" I ii<" t ' LL> , pp . 11 0 13 1 , e s p. pp. 120 - 123). This was oft. e n at. 1 11 ,• c.,pc 11 se o f Bl a c k worke r·s, in Lcrm s of jobs, wag e l e v e l s, a nd wv lfar-e.

So h o w d o Lhcsc point s b e ar o n an a r c hi s m? If we a r c t o forg e " " e ff ec t i ve and s u cc e ss ful mov e men t we mu s t. fi rs tly, r·ec ognlse th a t. th e move me nt mus t b e based on Lh e oppresse d classe s. But we m" '" ' r·ecogni se a nd c hall e n ge opp res sion w i thin Lhe c las s by sc p a r·at e o rga n isat ion s ( e g. Bl ac k o nly ) if neces sary. These organi sa tion s wo uld b e p a rt. o f a broad e r re vo luti o nary mass mov e me nt. i n volving " mau )' diffe r· c n t g r o u ps aud individual s .. • Th e y will have dlffe r·ent c>. p c· r i e 11 c es a ud appr·o a c h es and e a c h will b e good a L diffe rent l. hi n gs " b u t wi I I communi ca t e and c oope rat e with o n e an o ther ( C lass W, u · , Unf'in ish c d Bu s in e ss, pp. 1:15 - fi). Fe d e r·ali s l slru c lu res are ICJea ll y s ui te d t o Lh i s Las k .

\t. t. h <' :;am<' L im e we mu s l. s tr· i v e Lo unile the o pp resse d clas s e s, (!j ll ,ll'd in !5 a g air. s t. t.h e s elfi s h manipulation of divisi on by Lhe b os s e s ,., ,J l h l' a mlo it1o u s ) , Lo fight. in Lh e ir own c lass intere st s i e . for· i. h e uvc r·Lhro w o f t h e r·uling c l a ss . Thirdly, we mu s t. c omba t. L he su l ida r· il y c t. c . g i ve n by n a ti o nalism w i th c.lass ide nLlLy, pr·l d e , l'ummuni t.y , :.; o l id a r· ity, hi s t o ry, c ulture a nd a c hi e v e men Ls ( CJass War, Un I' in i s h ed /Ius i n e ss p. 50) .

F in a lly, o 11 r r o l e as r·e voluLionar ie s . Our a im i s t o build a rt · \ o lu t i o n ary a nd l i b e rl a r· ian wo rke r - p e a s ant moveme nt., ( b a se d on lh <' up pr·ps s " d c lasses , ll lJ T r·ecogn i s ing o ppression a n d st ruggl e wJt. hi n t h e c l a s s ) , whi c h will strive Lo i.n c r e as e t he mil itancy of s t.r·ug g l 0 s , t.o build a c ulture of r·e voluli.on , and to buil d a s i t u al • o n o f co unL0 r p o we r, of p e oples po we r.

IN '/'Ill S WA Y WJ.; CAN HAKE '1'/f/<." REVO/,U'I'lON . 1- '0 1/Wi\IW '/'0 A SOC I r,"/'Y IJASJ..'D ON Dl ll/<.'C'f' /JHHOCRACY, NOT POW/<,'R , AN/J NEED

NO'/' Gllf<'}<; [)! ! ! ( 1.. v.)

BRAT ACH DUBH PREFACE

One of the e~~~~ential features of anarchism is a non-detenninilltic view of hilltory and the recognition of the importance of human will on its course. We do not have a ~d credo to be pused from generation to generation, but require a constant reappraisal of analyses and 801utions to be adapted to different historical, geogra­phical, etc., contexts.

This aeries of pamphlets has therefore evolved through the growing awarene81 of the need for a theoretical instrument as a very necesllllry part of the total and com­plex work of building a revolutionary direction within the anarchillt movement. It is our opinion that our failing to have any significant presence in the reality of present day struggles is largely due to complacency and lack of up to date analyses of problema in an increasingly complex 80cial structure.

The wide upsurge of libertarian feeling and expre1111ion, especially 11ince 1968, is one of the main pre-occupations of the State, and it ill ulling all the means at iltl disposal to divert or ab80rb thill. We see the same thing happening on the-industrial front with words such as self-management, federalism, de-centralisation, being flaunted by aU and sundry who have an interest in keeping a tottering capitalism on its feet and channel it into a new fonn of anonymou11 bureaucratic capitalism where workers would be running their own exploitation. If we anarchists are not prepared to work to clarify these problems, both among our~~elves at a tlteoretical level, and generally through being present and working towards libertarian goals where ~les are going on, this horrifying prospect may l!OOn become a reality.

We do not accept that interpretation of anarchism which puts all it8 faith in the IDEA, believing that diffusing at random arbitrarily chopped versions of tltat idea, without any attempt to relate the work of past comrade11 to the real situations of today, is working towards revolution.

On the other hand, we refuse to fall into the trap of interpreting tlte failings of some comrades as being due to lack of organisation at a structural level. We are not concerned with building castles in tlte air--if they e.ver come to the ground they usually tum into monsters.

What we do mean to do is go into the prohlems of anarchist org.nisational methods, hoping thus to isolatt> old fontlll of struggle which do not meet the net•d11 of the present day, and point out the latent authoritarianism which exi11ts in certain alternatives that are being tried.

We are convinced of the need for workers' autonomy, based on self-management of the struggle and of production. We are for direct action in tl1 e factories, on the land, in the schools and in tlte community. Altl10ugh we art' sure of the validity of anarchist and libertJarian methodology, we are open to combining forces all far as we can with other groups on concrete ii!Sues, where we shall alwaye defend and develop &elf-management in it8 mo11t intimate mt>.aning.

That social and economic change is a dynamic which exist · . ._ ; ·• v . ,..id10ut the presence of anarchists is a fact; but if dte lives and efforts of those involved are not once again to become a ntarginal deficit in the balance l!lwet of the new managers, under whatever guise, there is a lot of work to be done.

BRATACII DliBII COLI.Ef.TIVE

[-

INTRODUCTION TO THE BRITISH EDITION

Anarchists have tended to shy away from the problem of the national liberation struggle or rejected it entirely because of their international­ist principles.

If internationalism is not to be merely meaningless rhetoric, it must imply solidarity between the proletariat of different countries or na­tions. This is a concrete term. When there is a revolution, it will be as it has been in the past, in a precise geographical area. How much it re­mains there will be directly linked to the extent of that international ism, both in terms of solidarity and of the spreading of the revolution itself.

The "patriotism" of the people at a basic and unadulterated level is the struggle for their own autonomy, a natural urge, a "product of the life of a social group united by bonds of genuine solidarity and not yet enfeebled by reflection or by the effect of economic and political in­terests as well as religious abstractions. "(Bakunin)

Just as the State is an anti-human construction, so is nationalism a concept designed to transcend and thwart the class struggle which exists wherever capitalism exists (all over the world). If the efforts of the people who are living in the social and economic ferment of what is happening under the name of national liberation are left to their lead­ers, they risk fmding themselves no better off than before, living in micro-corporate States under whatever flag is chosen for them. Anti­imperialism can mask local corporatism if the struggle is not put in class terms at a micro- as well as macro-scopic level. As the following article demonstrates, many of the Marxist groups engaged in national liber­ation struggles are none too clear on this point.

Alfredo Bonanno's article was ~¥ritten as a response to a real situa­tion, that of Italy, and in particular, Sicily. At the present time in that country , where economic and political disintegration is rife, the weak­est link (Sicily) is being subjected to propaganda and actions directed towards creating a state of tension in order to lay the shaky found­ations for a separatist solution. This solution, a separate Sicilian state, is being proposed by t'1e forces of the right, i.e. the fascists, who have fo rm ed a tenuous working alliance with the Mafia , and who together are th e willing servants of USA interests through the intermediary of th e CIA . Each party has its own interest to establish and protect: th e Mafia gain access to political contacts and facilities for fmancial transac tio ns, the Americans keep their hold on an economy which is at

4

present seeking solutions from the Communist Party, as well. as main­taining a strategic base in the Mediterranean, ant! the fascists, once in power, would gain credibility enabling them to extend this power to­wards the North.

Needless to say the Sicihan proletariat would pay the :Jril.:e for this solution to the country's problems, in the same way as up until now they have paid in sweat and blood for the development of the North,' as well as supplied cheap labour to the German and Swiss economies. This situation cannot be discarded as irrelevant to revolutionaries because when it reaches the international eye it will be masked as a nationalist struggle. The basic truth of Sicilian reality is a super-exploited pro­letariat whose only solution can be sought through anned struggle for workers' autonomy through a free federal or collectivist systeni of production and exchange.

To get nearer home: two situations immediately present themselves, the first, Ireland, which tends to be either left aside as being too com­plicated, or unconditionally supported as an anti-imperialist war. This anti-imperialism must be clarified. That the Irish proletariat will never run their own lives while British soldiers are occupying their land is a fact. But an internal dominator, whether Republican or otherwise, with its own army or State apparatus, would be no less an obstacle.That the seeds of revolution which have always been idcntifiet! with national independence exist in Ireland is a fact, but this fact is constantly being distorted by those with an interest in using racial and religious differ­ences to their own ends. Only through revolutionary economic and social change, through the autonomous :.~ctions of the Irish exploited as a whole, supported by the exploited of Britain and the rest of the world, can ethnic differences he ret!imensioned ami superstructural fantasies be destroyed. Counter-infonnation must brought out in opposition to the media which has thrived on stirring up hat red around irrational issues. The economic foundations of these irrational issues should be laid bare to the world, and economic solutions worked for through direct action to put production, distribution and defense in the hands of the people themselves.

In Scotland big business has fount! new roots , ancl the nationalist argument is proving to be effectiw in getting the workers to sacrifice themselves for the false goal of 'building the national economy', 'curbing intlation', through 'indepu1denu.: from Whitehall'. Mull i-national interests can thrive on smaller centralised inlt'rdependant States, rather than the old concept of the puwerful nation. At a lth.: al level. there are always personal (economic and stat us) interests to be gained: for

I

example, revival 01 1anguage orren means rne possibility or a new lOcal elite involved in mass media, education and so on.

At the same time, it is easy to understand that the exploited in deliberately under-developed Scotland look to the centres of British capitalism and interpret their misery through a nationalist optic. But the revolutionary work of unmasking irrational nationalism should not disdain the basic struggle for identity and self-management or divert it into a passive waiting for an abstract world revolution.

Anarchists must therefore work to show up the void of national self-determination, and disrupt the corporate plans of parties, trade unions and bosses by identifying the real struggle for self-appropriation and contributing to it in a concrete way. Along the road to generalised insurrection, techniques of sabotage and defence must be in the hands of those directly involved, eliminating dependence on outside groups and their ideologies in order for them to take over production and dis­tribution and run their own areas on the basis of free federalism coll­ectivism, or both. Starting from this self-managed basis in a logic ~here the 'transitional phase' finds no place, the perspective of a wider feder­ation of free peoples becomes a foreseeable reality .

All this requires study and work, both at a practical and theoretical level. We hope that this pamphlet will be a small contribution towards this end.

Jean Weir

""*ANARCHISM AND THE NATIONAL . ... ***LIBERATION STRUGf_>LE ......

Anarchism is internationalist, its struggle docs not confine itself to one region

20r area in the world, but extends everywhere alongside the

proletariat who are struggling for their own liberation. This requires a declaration of principles which are not abstract ami vague, but concrete and well-defined. We are not interested in a universal humanism which finds origin and justification in the French bourgeois revolution of 1789.3 The declaration of the rights of man, a banner waved by all the democratic governments in power today, deals with an abstract man who is identified with the bourgeois ideal. •

We have often argued against a certain idealist anarchism which speaks of universal revolution, acts of faith , illuminism, and in sub­stance rejects the struggle of the proletariat and is anti -popular. This an­archism becomes an individual and mythologkal humanitarianism with no precise social or economic content. The whole planet comes to be seen as a biological unit and discussions end in a sterile adjournment to the determining power of the superiority of the anarchist ideal over all other ideals.

We think on the contrary that man is a histori.:al being, who is horn into and lives in a precise historical situation. This places him in certain relationships with economic, social, linguistic and ethnic, etc., struc­tures, with important consequences in the field of science, philosophi­cal reflection and concrete action. The problem of nationality is born from this historical direction and cannot be eliminated frum it without totally confusing the very :··nmdation of anarchist federalism. As Ba­kunin wrote: "Every people, however small they are, poss,•ss t!1eir own character, their own particular way of living, speaking, feeling, thinking and working, and this character, its specific mod e of existence, is pre­cisely the basis of their nationality. It is th e result of th e whole of the historical life and all the conditions of that pcopk':; envimllllll'nt, a purely natural and spontaneous phGnornenon ."

The basis of anarchist federalism is the organisati<H1 uf production and the distribution of goods, as opposed to th e political ad111inislration of people. In fact, once the revolLllion is underway and production and distribution comes to be handled in a colkctivist \H communist"way (or in various ways according to needs and possibilities), the fednal struc­ture with its natural limits would rend er the preceeding political struc­ture incongruous. It would be e<~tually absurd to imagine such a wide limit as one extending over th e whole of the planet. If th ere will be are-

7

vutultull aL au H wtu ue au mcompww one, ana rnts must matenal­ise in space . Territorial limits will then not necessarily coincide with the political confines of the preceeding State which has been destroyed by the revolution. In this case the ethnic division would take the place of the deforming political one . The cohesive elements of the ethnic di­mension are precisely those which help to identify nationality and which have been so clearly expressed by Bakunin· in the passage quo­ted above .

Anarchists refuse the principle of the dictatorship of the proletariat or the management of the proletariat by a revolutionary minority using the ex-bourgeois State. They implicitly refuse the political dimension of the existing bourgeois State from the very moment in which the re­volution begins. We cannot accept the "use" of the State apparatus in a revolutionary sense, therefore the provisional limit to be given to the freely associated structures remains the ethnic one. It is in this sense that Kropotkin saw the federation of free peoples, based on the approx­imate and incomplete example of the mediaeval communes as a solu­tion to the social problem.

But this argument, it must be clear, has nothing to do with separa­tism.7 The essential point of the argument we are making here is that there is no difference between exploiters, that the fact of being born in a certain place has no influence on class divisions. The enemy is he who exploits, organising production and distribution in a capitalist dimen­sion, even if this exploiter then calls us compatriot, party comrade, or whatever other pleasing epithet. Class division is still based on exploita­tion put into effect by capital with all the economic , social, cultural , religious, etc., means at its disposal, and the ethnic basis which we identified as the limits of the revolutionary federation have nothing to do with this . Unity with the internal exploiters is impossible , because no unity is possible between the class of workers and the class of ex­Ploiters.

In this sense Rocker writes: "We are anational. We demand the right of the free decision of each commune, each region , each people; pre­cisely for this reason we reject the absurd idea of a unitarian national State. We are federalists, that is, partisans of a federation of free human groupings, which do not separate themselves one from the other, but which, on the contrary, associate with the best of intimate ties, through natural, moral and economic relations . The unity to which we aspire is a cultural unity, a unity which goes forward on the most varied found­ations, based on freedom and capable of repelling every deterministic mechanism of reciprocal relations. For this reason we reject every

8

particularism and every separatism under which is hid den certain individual interests ... fo r here we have an ideo logy where i( is possible t~ discern the sordid interests of capitalist groups ."

There remains to this day , even among anarchists when confronting the problem of nationality, a living residual of idea listic reasoning. Not without reason, the anarchist Nido wrote in 192 5, "The dismembering of a country is not considered a desirable ideal by many revolutionaries. How many Spanish comrades would approve of the historical disappear­ance of Spain and its re-organisation on a regio nal basis constituted of ethnic Castilian , Basque, Galician, and Catalan, etc. groups? Would the revolutionaries in Germany resign themselves to a dismembering similar to a libertarian type of organisation whi ch based itself on the historical groups of Bavaria , Badt:n, Westphalia, Hannover, l'lc .? On the other hand , these comrades would quite possibly like to see a dismembering of the present British Empire, and a free and independant reo rganisa­tion of its colonies in G;- <_> <tt Britain (Sco tl and, Ireland, Wales) and over­seas, which would not be pleasing to th e English revo lutionaries! Such are men and in this way , in the course of the last war (the I st Wo rld War), w~ saw the co-existence of the concept of nationality in a his­torical sense , alongsid e the revolutionary claimes of the anarchists. (Ob­viously referring to Kropotkin and the Manifesto of the Sixteen .)

Nido refers to a state of mind which has not changed mu ch . Even to­day, either due to a persistence of th e illuminist and masonic ideals within a certain part of the anarchis t mov t: lll e nt, 1.H dill~ to a mental laziness which turns many comrades fmm th e most burning problems and pushes them to less troubled wato::rs, th e reac tions in the face of the problem of nationality are not very different to those described by Nido .

In itself th e probkm wo uld not concnn li S lliii Ch, if it was not that it has a very precise historica l outlet, and that th e lac k l)f clarit y has ex­tremely ne gative effects on many of the real struggles in the co urse of development. In substance, the problem of nationalit y remains at a theoretical level , while that o f the struggle for national liberation is tak­ing on increasingly in today's world , a practi cal rekvance of great im­portance.

9

Anarchists and the National Liberation Struggle

The process of decolonisation has intensified within many imperialist structures since the last war, urgently raising the problem of a socialise and internationalist interpretation of the national liberation struggle. The drama of the Palestianian people, the struggles in Ireland, the Bas­que countries, Africa, and Latin America, are continually posing the problem with a violence hitherto unknown.

Different economic forms within the same country determine a sit­uation of colonisation, guaranteeing the process of centralisation. In other words, the persistence of capitalist production requires inequal­ities in the rate of development in order to continue. Mandel writes on this subject, "The inequality in the rate of development between differ­ent sectors and different firms is the cause of capitalist expansion. This explains how widened reproduction can continue until it reaches the exclusion of every non-capitalist means. Surplus value is thus realised by means of an increase in the concentration of capital". Mandel also treats unequal development between the various areas of one political State. The basic principle of capitalism is that although it can assure partial equilibriums, it can never assure total equilibrium, that is to say, it is incapable of industrialising systematically and harmoniously the whole of a vast territory. In other words, regional colonisation is not a consequence of centralisation, but is on the contrary one of the pre­conditions of capitalist development. Naturally, economic centralisa­tion goes with political centralisation, and any allusions to democratic centralism are merely demagogic formulae, used at certain historical moments. Even superficially examining the facts of industrial and agri­cultural production from the unification of Italy to the end of the 1960's. one can clearly see what tasks the State has assigned to the South~ 0 to supply capital (especially emigrants' rcLJlus, taxes, etc.), supply a cheap labour force (emigration to the North), and supply agri­cultural products in exchange for industrial ones on the basis o( the re­lationship of colonial exchange.

An objection to this could be that the State discriminates in this way between two bourgeois groups: the industrialists of the North and the landowners of the South, but to understand this we must bear in mind the different possibilities of exploitation between a highly developed and an under-developed area. In the South a 12-14 hour day was nor­mal while the eight hour day had already been gained in the North. It is in this way that , thanks to the various advantages of a still mediaeval

10 • l

(

l

conception of society, the Southern landowners continued to extrac t surplus value without much re-investment .

Thus the development of the North was guaranteed through th e ex · ploitation and enslavement of the South. The political rule of th e North dictated this direction , which then took the course of capitalist prod uc tion in general. Integration into the Italian capitalist system produced a disintegration of the Sicilian economy which in many aspec ts is of a pre-capitalist type. The law of the market obliged the most backward regions to integrate with the basic capitalist system: this is the pheno­menon of colonisation, which comes about in foreign regions or na­tions, as well as in the internal regions of single capitalist States.

The next stage in capitalist development is the leap over the national frontier which has been weakened by the polarisation of the surround­ing economies at the peaks of exchange monopolisation. Colonisation gives way to imperialism.

Here is what the comrades of Front Libcrtaire wrote on the question : "National liberation movements must bear this reality in mind and not stop at a pre-imperialist analysis which would lead to a regional third­worldism . That would mean that their revolutionary struggle would remain within the dialectic of coloniser-colonised, while ends to be attained would only be political independence, national sovereignty . regional autonomy, etc. This would be a superficial analysis , and not take account of global reality . The enemy to be defeated by the Irish , the Bretons, the Proven<;als, for example , is not England and France. but the whole of the bourgeoisie whether English, Breton, Provenyal or American. In this way the ties which unite the regional bourgeoisie with the national and world bourgeoisie can be understood."

In this way national liberation goes beyond simple internal decoloni­sation and attacks the real situation of imperialist capitalist develop­ment, putting the objective of the destruction of the political State into a revolutionary dimension.

Ethnic limits also become easily recognisable . The ethnic limit in the revolutionary process of free federations of production and distribution associations has its counterpart in the pre-revolutionary phase within a class dimension. The ethnic base of today co nsists of the whole of th e exploited people who live in a given territory of a given nation. th ere being no common ethnic base between exploiter and exploited. It is lo­gical that this class basis will be destroyed along with the destruction of the political State, where the ethnic limit will no longer coincide with the exploited living within a given territory, but with the whole of the men and women living in that territory who have chosen to live tht'ir

II

lives freely . On this pro blem the comrades of Fronte Libertaire continue : "Ethnic

culture is no t that of all wh o are born or who live in the same territory and speak the same language . It is the culture of those who, in a given group, suffer the same exploitation . Ethnic culture is class culture , and for this reason is revolutionary culture. Even if th e class conscious­ness of the workers corresponds to a working class in a situation of na­tional dependence, it is nevertheless the class consciousness which will carry the struggle to its conclusion : the destruction of capitalism in its present state. The decisive struggle to be carried out must be a world­wide class struggle of exploited against exploiters, beginning from a struggle without frontiers , with precise tactics against the nearest bour­geoisie, especially if th ey procla im themse lves "nationalist" . This class struggle is moreover the only way of saving and stimulating the "eth­nic speci fica tio n" o n which it would be possible to build stateless so­cialism ."

The anarchist programme concerning the national liberation struggle is therefore clear : it must no t go to wards constituting an "intermediate stage " toward s the social revo lut io n thro ugh the formation of new na­tional States. Anarchists refuse to participate in national liberation fronts;. t hey participate in class fronts which may or may no t be invol­ved in na tional liberati on struggles. The st ruggle must spread to es tab­lish economi c, political and social stru ctures in the li bera ted territo ries, based o n fed eralis t and libertarian o rga nisatio ns.

Revolu t ionary Marxists who, for reasons we cannot analyse here, m onopo lise the va rious si tuatio ns wh ere natio nal li beration struggles are are in course, cannot always reply with such clarity to the perspective o f a radical contestatio n of State centralisation . Their myth of the withering away of the bo urgeois Sta te and th eir pretention of using it , creates an in surmo untable problem.

Marxists and the National Liberation Struggle

If we ca n share th e class analys.is made bv some Marxists groups such as th a t elabora ted by a part o f the E.T.A'. 'which we published in no. 3 o f A narchismo, wh at we canno t accep t is the fund amental hypothesis of the form ation of a workers' State based on the dictatorship of the prole tariat , more or less along the lines o f the preceeding political State according to th e organisational capacity of the individual national liber­ation o rganisa tio ns. For example , th e E.T.A. comrades are fighting for a free Basque country , but are no t very interes ted in a free Catalonia or a

12

free Andalusi~.2 Here we come back to the doubts so well e xpressed by Nido which we quoted above. At the basis of many Marxist anal yses there lurks an irrational nationalism which is never very cle~r. .

Going back to the Marxist classics and their polemiC w1th Bakumn , we are able to reconstruct a kind of dialogue between the two, glancmg at a similar piece of work done by the Bulgarian comrade Balkansk1.

In 1948, immediately after the Slav congress where he had unsucces:­fully developed the idea of a Slav federation to re-umte a free Russ1a and all the Slav peoples to serve as a first nucle~s for a future Europe~n federation and then a greater universal /~derat10~ of peoples, Bakunm took part in the insurrection of Prague. Foll~wmg ~he Pragu.e ev_ents, Bakunin, hunted by the police, took refuge m Berlm and established close contacts with a few Czech students with the aim of attemptmg an insurrection in Bohemia. At this time, (the begi~ning_of 18~9) , he_ pub­lished Appeal to the Slavs which resulted in hts bemg qUJte ~n_Justly accused of pan-Slavism. Marx and Engels replied with a sour ~ntlctsm m their paper Neue Rheinischer Zeiting. ~et us now see thts hypothe-tical dialogue as it is suggested by Balanskl.

Bakunin: The Slav peoples who are enslaved und~r A~stria, Hungary and Turkey, must reconquer their freedom and umte w1th Russia, free

from Zsarism, in a Slav federation. . . M -E Js· All these small powerless and stunted natiOns bas1cally

arx nge . ' . . · t t h owe recognition to those who, according t? h1stoncal neces~l~Y, a ac them to some great empire, thereby allowm_g them to partiCipate m a historical devel-opment whicr., had they been left to themselves would have remained quite foreign to them. Clearly such a r~sult can_not be reached without treading upon some sensitive areas. Wtthout viOlence nothing can be achieved in history . . . B k · · We must allow in particular for the hberatwn of the Czechs,

a unm. .f. . · · gle the Slovaks and the Moravians, and their reum 1cation m one sm

entity. . d M · Marx-Engels: The Czechs, among whom we must mclu e the orav1a~s and the Slovaks, have never had a history. After Charlemagne: Bohemta was amalgamated with Germany. For a while the Czech nation eman­cipated themselves to form the Great Moravian Empire. Consequently , Bohemia and Moravia were definitively atta~h~d t~ Gern;an~ a~d the Slovak regions remained to Hungary . And this mex1stent n_atl_on from a historical point of view is demanding independence? It IS madmiss­able to grant independence to the Czechs because then East Germany would seem like a small loaf gnawed away by rats.

13

Bakunin: The Poles, enslaved by three states, must belong to a comm­unity on an equal basis along with their present dominators: the Ger­mans, the Austrians, the Hungarians and the Russians. Marx-Engels: The Germans' conquest of the Slav regions between Elba and the Warthe was a geographical and strategical necessity resulting from the divisions in the Carlovingian Empire. The reason is clear. The result cannot be questioned. This conquest was in the interest of civil­isation, there can be no doubt about it. Bakunin: The Southern Slavs, enslaved by a foreign minority, must be freed.

Marx-Engels: It is of vital necessity for the Gem1ans and the Hungarians to cut themselves out of the Adriatic. Geographical and commercial consi?~rations r~mst come before anything else . It is perhaps a pity that magmf1cent California has recently been snatched from the inept Mexi­~ans who do not know what to do with it? The "independence" of a few Spamards in California and Texas might possibly suffer. "Justice" and other moral principles are perhaps denied in all that. But what can be done in the face of so many other events of this kind in universal history? Bakunin: So long a one single persecuted nation exists the fmal and complete triumph of democracy will not be possible ;nywhere. The oppression of a people or a single individual, is the oppression of all and it is not possible to violate the liberty of one without violating th~ liberty of all.

Marx-Engels: In the pan-Slav manifesto we have found nothing but ~hese more _or le_ss moral categories: justice, humanity, freedom, equal­tty, fraterntty, zndependence, which sound good, but which can do nothmg in the political and historical field. We repeat, not one Slav people- apart from the Poles the Russians and perhaps the Turkish Slavs- has a future for the simple reason that all the other Slavs lack the most elementary historical, geographical, political and industrial bases . Independence and vitality fail them. The conquerers of the various Slav nations have the advantage of energy and vitality. Bakunin: The liberation and federation of the Slavs is only the prelude to the union of the Euroeean republics. Marx-Engels: It is _impossible to unite all peoples under a republican Oag With _love and universal fraternity. It is in the bloody struggle of a re­volutronary war that unification wiJI be forged. llakunin : Certainly, in the social revolution, the West, and especially the ~atm peoples, Will preceecl the Russians ; but it will nevertheless be the Slav masses who will make th e first revolutionary move and will

14

guarantee the results. Marx-Engels: We reply that the hatred of the Russians and the first re­volutionary passion of the Germans, and now the hatred of the Czechs and the Croates are beginning to intersect. The revolution can only be saved by putt~ng into effect a decisive terror against the Slav peoples who for their perspective of their miserable "national independence", have sold out democracy and the revolution. Some day we shall take bloody revenge upon the Slavs for this vile and scandalous betrayal.

There can be no doubt about these radical counterpositions. Marx and Engels remain tied to a determinist view of history which is inten­ded to be materialist, but which is not free from certain Hegelian premises, lessening the possibility of an analytical method . Moreover, they, especially Marx, let fly on strategic evaluations which reveal an emphasis on liberal-patriotism which, if it was justifiable in 1849, was a lot less so in 1855 . Nevertheless at this time , during the Crimean war, he writes : "The great peninsula south of the Sava and the Danube , this marvellous country, has the misfortune of being inhabited by a con­glommeration of races and nationalities which are very different , and one cannot say which would be the best suited for progress and civil­isation. Slavs, Greeks, Rumanians, Albanians, almost 12 million in all , are dominated by a million Turks. To this day one might ask if of all these races, the Turks were not the most qualified to have the hege­mony which can evidently be exercised over this mixed population by one nation."

And again in 1879, in the course of the Russian-Turkish war, which today the communists call "the Bulgarian patriots' war of liberation", Marx wrote, "We definitely support the Turks, and that for two rea­sons. The first is that we have studied the Turkish peasants, that is , the Turkish popular masses, and we are convinced that they are one of the most representative, hard working and morally healthy of the European peasants. The second is that the defeat of the Russians will accelerate considerably the social revolution which is rising to a period of radical transformation in the whole of Europe."

In fact, the Marxist movements for national liberation , when ruled by a minority who eventually transform themselves into a party (a gen­eralised situation at the present time) , end up using strategical dis­tinctions, leaving the essential probelms- which in point of fact also · influence strategy - in second place. . The Marxists do not, for example , go into the difference between the

imperialism of large States and the nationalism of small ones, often us-

15

ing the term nationalism in both cases. This causes great confusion. The nationalism of the small States is often seen as something which con­tains & positive nucleus, an internal revolt of a social character, but the detailed class distinction is usually limited to the strictly necessary, according to strategic perspectives. It is often maintained, uncon­sciously following in this the great 111aestro Trotsky , that if on the one hand the upsurge of the people and oppressed minorities is immutable, the working class vanguard must never try to accelerate this thrust, but limit themselves to following the impulses while remaining outside .

This is what Trotsky wrote in January 1931 : "The separatist trends in the Spanish revolution raise the democratic problem of the right of a nationality to self-determination . These tendencies, seen superficially, have worsened during the dictatorship . But while the separatism of the Catalan bourgeoisie is nothing but a means for them to play the Madrid government against the Catalan and Spanish people, the separatism of the workers and peasants is just the covering of a deeper revolt of a social nature . We must make a strong distinction between these two types of separatism. Nevertheless, it is precisely to distinguish the wor­kers and peasants oppressed in their national sentiment, from the bour­geoisie that the vanguard of the proletariat must take up this question of the right of the nation to autonomy , which is the most courageous and sincere position. The workers will defend totally and without reserve , the right of the Catalans and Basques to live as independent States in the case of the majority opting for a complete separation, which does no t mean to say at all that the working elite must push the Catalans and Basques on to the road of separatism. On the contrary, the economic unity of the country , with great autonomy for nationalities, would offer the workers and peasants great advantages from the eco­nomic point of view and from that of culture in general."

It is clear to see that the counterposition is the most radical possible. Marxists and Trotskyists follow systems of reasoning which for us have nothing to do with the free decision of the exploited minorities to determine the conditions of their own freedom . It is not the case to take up the fundamental theoretical differences, but it is enough tore­read Trotsky's passage to realise the theoreti cal ambiguities it contains, and how much space is given to a political strategy favourable to the es­tablishment of a dictatorship by an "illuminated" mmority, and how little would be done towards the "real" freedom o r the exploited . The ambiguous use of the term separatism should be underlined, and the in­sistence upon irrational arguments such as those relative to the "na­tional sentiment" .

16

Many problems have been raised in this work, ~ith. the awaren~ss that they have only been done so in part, du~ ~o thetr wtde complex~ty. We began from a situation of fact: that of Stelly, an.d a process of dismem­bering capable of causing incalculable daJ?~ge m th~ near fut~re. We have said how this process sees, in our opm10n, a umon of fasctsts and mafia, and how the interests which these p~ople ~ant to prot.ect are substantially those of the Americans. The cuculat10n ~f certam. s~ale separatist formulae has obliged us to take as clear as po~stble a ~osth?n, and seek to single out the essential points of anarchist mternatlonaltsm in the face of the problem of the national liberatio~ struggl~. We have also given a brief panoramic sketch of a few of the mterpretlve defec~s latent in the orthodox Marxist view of the problem an? a few. strate~c obtusities which in practice determine the no small difficulties whtch the Marxist-inspired national liberation movements ~n~ th~mselves. We shall now try to conclude our research with a few mdtcafiOns of theo retical interest. . .

We must thoroughly re-examine the problem of the rel~ho~sh~p be-tween structure and superstructure. Many comrades remam wtthm the Marxist model and do not realise it, so much this has penetr~ted our "current" way of seeing things. The power which the ~arxtsts n.ow hold in our universities allows them to propose a cert~m a~alytlc~l model to the intellectual minorities, selling it off as. reahty .~tth their usual complacency. In particular, it is the conceptw.n of m~ans of production" which must be put to careful analysts, showmg t~e limitations and consequences of the deterministic use of the e~onomtc fac tor. Today economic reality has changed and cannot fit mto. the Marxist typology; nevertheless they do their u t~ost to comphc~te matters by attempting to thus explain events whtch would ot~erwtse be easily explicable. Interpolating more open models _of reasonm~, we should be able to identify relevant factors such as ~reCise ly the natiOnal and cultural or ethnic particularities. These enter mto ~ wtder ~rocess of exploitation and detetmine quantitive changes rendenng posstble ex­ploitation itself and , in the last analysis, cause the emergence of ~t~er changes, this time of a qualitative nature. Peoples and classes, pohhcal and cul tural form ations, ideological movements and the concre~e struggle, all undergo interpretative changes in relation to the bastt model. If a mechanistic determinism is accepted, the consequences ar the inevitable dictatorship of the proletariat, the passfl(YP + r-···;~.:!s a ~o t easily understood and historically non-documentable progressive ehm

ination of the State: on the contrary, if the interpretative m~del is open . . . f ' f individual will comes to be mcluded m a process

and mdetermmts tc , 1 · f th · · ous socio

of reciprocal influence with class consciousness,. 1 e van. o mor~ cultural entities are analysed not only economtcally_ but ~s on widely (socially) the consequences would be v~ry. dtfferen~. ~re~t~ ceived statist ideas would give way to t_he posstbthty ~f a o~~~ t ._ libertarian construction, a federalist proJect of productiOn an ts n

bution . · f a mechanistic Certainly all this requires not only the negatiOn o . b t 1 materialism which, in our opinion, is tl~e- result of Mar~tsm, . _u ar~oo~ certain idealism which, still in ~>IH optm~n, comes t~ m:~~~l~t~avalue anarchism. In the same way' umve rsahs~ mt~n~ie? as an . . h­is ahistorical and idealised, because such tllummishc ~o~tul~ting ts_not ing other than the inverted ideal of reformed Chnstlamty. It ~s ~~~ possible to see clearly behind the We~tem ~egemon: how b~~~uso h~­was Eieveloped b~ the ideology ~~ a tals~ tr~~o:;y~~ a~f ~~he white manitarianism wtth a cosmopohtan basts. e f . il-man's domination is represented in various fformds at~ the fmt~t;1 pool~~~al

· d tl1et·efore as the oun a tOn ° isation and sctence, an . d .. 1

· · t he emony of a few States over otl:ers.- s ~he mas~m~ an u um~n~s '• id;ology could bolster the Jacobintsm Iudden wttl11~- the L~mn~t

. f M· rxism but has nothing to do wtth anarclHsm,_desptte t e ~=~~~~~a~ ma~y co~rades continue to am use themselves with abstract schemes and out-dated theories. . . . . _

Anarchists should give all their support, concrete rega_rclmg ~artlct_pa · · · 1 · • · I tudy to natrona! ltberatron tion theore ttcal concernmg ana yses an< s · . . . f

stru~gles. This should be begun from the autonor!1?us orgam_~atwn_ o the workers with a clear vision of class cou nterpostttons, that Is puttt~g the local b~urgeoisie in their correct class dimensiOn, and _prepare t 1e federalist construction of th e future society which should nse fro_m_ th~ , · 1 olur 1·011 On this basis which leaves no room for de_ t_ermtmsm_ s SOCia rev · ' . . . , . )' . f f t) and idealisms of various species, any L .. scrst mstrumenta tsa ton o " 1e 0 ressed people's aspirations ca n easily he !ought. It ts necess~ry tl~~ugh that in the first place we become c~e ar among ou_rselves, l~ok1~g forward and building the correct analyses lo r an anarchtst revolutwna Y., strategy.

IX

APPENDIX: EXCERPTS FROM CLASSICAL ANARCHIST TEXTS

BAKUNIN

The State is not the Fatherland, it is the abstraction, th e meta physi­cal, mystical, political, juridical fiction of the Fatherland. The commo n people of all countries deeply love their fatherland; hut that is a na­tural, real love. The patriotism of the people is not just an idea, it is a fact; hut political patriotism, love of the State, is not the faithful ex ­pression of that fact: it is an expression distorted by means of a false abstraction, always for the benefit of an exploiting minority.

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 he called a human principle which is universal and common to all men; and nationality separates ni.en, there­fore it is not a principle. 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. Therefore we should respect it. To violate it is to commit a crim e, and , to speak the language of Mazzini, it he­comes a sacred principle each Lim e it is menaced and violated. And that is why I feel myself always sincerely the patrio t of all oppressed father­lands.

The Essence of Nationality. !\ futh erland represents th e incontestable and sacred right of every mau, of every human group, association, commune, regi on, and 11ation Lo live, Lo feel, to think, to want, and to act in its own way, and this manner of living and feeling is always the incontestable result of a long historic development. Nationality and Universal Solidarity. There is nothing more absurd and at the same time more harmful, more deadly for the people than to up­hold the fictitious principle of nationality as the ideal of all the people's aspirations. Nationality is not a universal human principle; it is a his­toric, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. Every people and the smalJest folk-unit has its own character, its own specific mode of existence, its own way of speaking, feeling, thinking, and acting; and il is this idiosyncracy that constitutes the essence of nationality , which is lite result of the whole historic life and the sum total o f the· living coudilions of that people.

Every people, like every pcrsou , iA involuularily that which it is and therefore has a right to IH: i lsd f. Thc·n·in ('Onsists tire so-called national rights. But if a certain people- or pnrsou c·xists in fact in a determinate form, it does no l fo llow !h;1t il or lw has a right to uphold nationality in one case and individualit y in lhc 'olher as specific principles, and that th ey have lo kc:c·p 011 forc·vn fu ssing over them. On the contrary, th e

19

~ I!

I

I,

I[

II[ RUDOLF ROCKER (NATIONALISM & CULTURE)

The old opinion which ascribes the creation of the r,~ ; ;._ .. ~~Bl state to the awakened national consciousness of the people is but a fairy tale, very servicable to the supporters of the idea of the national state, but false, none the less. The nation is not the cause, but the result of the state. It is the state which creates the nation, not the nation the state. Indeed, from this point of view there exists between people and nation the same distinction as between society and the state.

Every social unit is a natural foundation which, on the basis of com· mon needs and mutual agreement, is built organically from below up­wards to guarantee and protect the general interest. Even when social institutions gradually ossify or become rudimentary the purpose of their origin can in most instances be clearly reCO€,'Tlised. Every state organisation, however, is an artificial mech an ism imposed on men from above by some ruler, and it never pursues any other ends but to defend and make seeure the interests of privileged minorities in society.

A people is the natural result of social union, a mutual association of men brought about by a certain similarity of external conditions of living, a common language, and special charac teristics due to climate and geographic environmen t. l n this manner arise certain common traits, alive in every member of the union, and forming a most import­ant part of its social existence. This inner relatiom;hip can as little be artificially bred as artificially destroyed. The nation, on the other hand, is the artificial result of th e struggle for political power, just as national­ism has never he en any thing but the political religion of the modern state. Belonging to a nation is never determined, as is belonging to a people, by profound and natural causes; it is always subject to political considerations and Lased on those reasons of state behind which the in­terests of privileged minorities always hide. A small group of diplomats who are simply the business representatives of privileged caste and class decide quite arbitrarily the national me mbership of certain men, who are not even asked for their consent, hut must suhrnil to this exercise of power because they cannot help therm;clves.

Peoples and groups of peoples ex ist ed Jon~ before the state put in its appearance. Today, also, they exist. and develof:J without the assistence of the state. They are only hindered in I h( ~ ir natural development when some external power interferes hy vioknc<" with their life and forces it into patterns which it has not known be fore. The nation is, then, un­thinkable without the stale. It is welded to that for weal or woe and owes its being solely to its presence. Consequently, the essential nature

21

of th e nation will alwayA es ·ape us if we attempt to separate.it from the slate and ·nJow it with a lif(~ of it own whi<:h it has never possessed.

A pcoph: il;) always a <"unlrrtllllily with rather uarrow boundaries. But a nation, a!l a rule, t:ucompaHHeH u whole· array o f diffe rent peoples and groups of peoples who ! l av e ~ by 111<m: or k s8 violent means been pressed into the frame of a common ~> I all:. In fact , iu all of Euro pe there is no state which does not consi!lt of a ~roup of diffat:nt peoples who were originally of different desce nt and SJH" cda and wnc fon:cd together into one nation solely by dynastie , cconomi<· and pol i I ic al in kre:!l t !l.

ALL nationalism is reactionary in its nature, for it s trives to cnforct~ on the St:parak parts of the great human family a dc1"inilt" charndn according to a preconceived idea. In this rt'SJH:ct , too, it ::;how~> th e interrelationship of nationalistic ideology with tl1e creed of every revealed religion. Nationalism creates artificial separations and parti­tions within that organic unity which finds its expression in the genu ~ Man, while at the same time it strives for a fictitious unity sprung oul y from a wish-concept; and its advocates would like to tunt" all member~

of a definite human group to one note in order to distinguish it from other groups still more obviously. In this respect, so-called "cultural nationalism" does not differ at all from political nationalism, for who~t' politieal purposes as a rule it serves as a fig-leaf. The two cannot be spiritually separated; they merely repn~st·nl twn different aspec ts of tla, · same endeavour.

Cultural nationalism appears in its purest form whc :n peopl«: are sub­jected to a foreign rule, and for this reason eanuol patrsuc the ir own plans for political power. In this event, "national tlaou{-\ht" pre fe rs to busy itself with the culture-building activitie-s of the· pt 'II Jik and tries to keep the national consciousness alive by recolle-ctions of vanished glory and past greatness. Such comparisons lwlwe·<· ll a p:u; f whida has alread y become legend and a slavish presc·nt make: the" pcoplt- doubly sensitive to the injustice suffered; for nothin~ affc-ds th e Hpirit of man mor·~ powerfully than traditic111 . But if su!"la ~roups of people succeed sooner or later in shaking off tl11· fun •i •n ok• · and the·msdves appear as a national power, then the cultur 11 ph mw of tlu ~ ir effort steps only too definitely into tlH: bue ·kl-\ruund, •ivau place to the sober reality of thei r political ohjeclivc ~ H . In ,; · e·(·,·nl hi 1·dory of th e various national organ­isms in Euro1H: nc•olc ·d ulln !lac· war arc found telling witnesses for this.

•• ••• • ••••• •• ••••••• 0. ,, • • ••••••• ••• 0 • • 0 •••••• 0 ••••••• 0 • •

---- --------------,-- ---~, -·· ...... --------------------- -----o-, ··------really have nothing in common: for home sentiment is not patriotism, is not love of the state, not love which has its roots in the abstract idea of the nation. It needs no labored explanation to prove that the spot of land on which man has spent the years of his youth is deeply inter­grown with his profoundest feeling. The impressions of childhood and early youth which are the most permanent and have the most lasting effect oupon his soul. Home is, so to speak, man's outer garment; he is most intimately aquainted with its every fold and seam. This home sentiment brings in later years some yearning after a past long buried under ruins: and it is this which enables the romantic to look so deep­ly within.

With so-called "national consciousness" this home sentiment has no relationship; although both are often thrown into the same pot and, after the manner of counterfeiters, given out as of the same value. In fact, true home sentiment is destroyed at its birth by "national con­sciousness", which always strives to regulate and force into a prescribed form every impression man receives from the inexhaustable variety of the homeland. This is the unavoidable result of those mechanical efforts at unification which are in reality only the aspirations of the national­istic states.

The attempt to replace man's natural attachment to the home by a dutiful love of the state-a structure which owes its creation to all sorts of accidents and in which, with brutal force, elements have been welded together that have no necessary connection-is one of the most grotes­que phenomena of our time. The so-called "national consciousness" is nothing but a belief propagated by considerations of political power which have replaced the religious fanaticism of past centuries and have today come to be the greatest obstacle to cultural development. The love of home has nothing in common with the veneration of an abstract patriotic concept. Love of home knows no "will to power"; it is free from that hollow and dangerous attitude of superiority to the neigh­bour which is one of the strongest characteristics of every kind of na­tionalism. Love of home does not engage in practical politics nor does it seek in any way to support the state. It is purely an inner feeling as freely manifested as mar. 's enjoyment of nature, of which home is a part. When thus viewed, the home feeling compares with the govern­mentally ordered love of the nation as rloes a natural growth with an artificial suhstih1te.

23

EXPJ,ANATORY ENDNOTES

I . " I I I 11 I y.

:1. " l ,t dll/ t' ,, , ," " <' apit.a. J i s L". Th<• J.' r (·nch l!<·v •J itJI I1Hl ( 1 7H'J)

r·P IH ' f''H ' III•d th, . v t ( t,o r· y (J f th e c apitali s t. <' la ~>s ov('r lh f ~ u ld l f · tH L &I

l ;ut(l l n r t l •i , lhu 1 tt :. hr ' r' lr•g in e apit.alist c: la :; : ; !:t'J \ ' I <· I.y .

;t .!__ ,, . , 11 11 vp j 1,, . , o l ~ :<· If - intere st. , gr·r· e d, 1ndi v 1dtHLit :: ut.

5. (t> ll t •, 1 IV • d t ••~tnn• s c- d on th e princ iplt.~ "fr·o m C":t c h a <, ·, Jr·dirq.-! l u

t .hcir· n i,,Jit y , I·~ t n t · l• at · , ·o r·ding t.o th e ir pr· o du c l.ivity . "

(i.,...!_ ( ·o m1111111 , , 1 (•• II I! IIIHI mf" aning) = or·ganis("d o n the prin c· ipi P "fr·o n1

t'< l ch a • , ., , d 1 ill ~ I •• I II• ' 1 , . ~ d• i I i t .y 1 t. o each a c co r·d i ng t. o their fi r · f' d . "

l ~ I I ' , ', t • l l l l lj~ Ill ' II 111 ' \otJ fl i JI iona/ S f. i1/ (',

!i! i (' . ,(. t I I ti ll " I I .. • ' I Jl I I ll fl .

it . ..!... .\n.~r • 1, , d fl 1 '' ' " IH w 1llt ~. ~r · Lh o do>.. Ma rxi sm and reformism ( s ocial dl" lfiUll' : t•)} , 1 1•11 •! '' 'flu· Uroa.de r socialisL movement..

I 0. " I' I I " I y

LL· Tl" · 1· .. ·1 11 , 1 1 " m i litant separaLisL g roup bas e d jn t.hc Ras<JU <' pr·ovince:: , JI ;, 1 ~ uln wh 1 ~ · h u ses lhc tactics of armed struggl e .

~ Cat. a lo11 IH 11 11d 1\nda ltJ s ia arc also Spanish provinccB , L o th o f

whi ch h avt · 'It l '' ''nll !i l movc nJc nls.

13. a rllrl l ' f ll' lllh l f" rit ,ury c~echoslovakian stud e nt work r r upri s ing again s t l.lo• • '"I• • .. 1 1. 111' Austrian (or Hapsburg) ~:wpir·c .

~ L eo n Tr~ol oil y "'"" "" "opposit ionist" Bol s h e vik Sov iet c" """'"" " l I' III" LY ( a nd the SovieL Union) in his rival I• •• pHrly l eade rship, Jo s eph Sta lin, foll owin1~ II"• do •n lh or ,. rcvious leader V.I . L e nin

cx pell<' d rr·om t.h e Lh <· lal. c l !l20s by

on l.h <' c on l. cs L s ( I !1 6:1).

ll!_,_ Co n :: p1111l,<11 •:: r,.vouring revolution fr·o m abo v• · (nllm< •d art. c r Lhc

bour·gco i >t .1""""" · lull s jn the French llc v o lut.i o ro).

1.§__,_ fl. · <l.- v o· l u p <' d by Lenin, wh o b c l it' Vo ' d llolll wo r· k<' r·'i c ou ld onl.y attain "t.r·adl' union consclousn c· :-;s 11n d ht · n c' t ' r· <~ qtJirc d the revoiiiJIUII/H' Y l eade rship or MIII' X I II I II Willi J.h " cor r ect undc r·s t . nndi n~-t" o f socjety ( sec hi ,; 1 ! 10~ l t · x l Wlonl 1 11 l. o b e done?).