4
<title>D.6 Are anarchists against Nationalism?</title>
9
<h1>D.6 Are anarchists against Nationalism?</h1>
12
Yes, anarchists are opposed to nationalism in all its forms. British
13
anarchists Stuart Christie and Albert Meltzer simply point out the obvious:
14
<i>"As a nation implies a state, it is not possible to be a nationalist and
15
an anarchist."</i> [<b>The Floodgates of Anarchy</b>, p. 59fn]
17
To understand this position, we must first define what anarchists mean by
18
nationalism. For many people, it is just the natural attachment to home,
19
the place one grew up. Nationality, as Bakunin noted, is a <i>"natural and
20
social fact,"</i> as <i>"every people and the smallest folk-unit has its own
21
character, its own specific mode of existence, its own way of speaking,
22
feeling, thinking, and acting; and it is this idiosyncrasy that constitutes
23
the essence of nationality."</i> [<b>The Political Philosophy of Bakunin</b>, p. 325]
24
These feelings, however, obviously do not exist in a social vacuum. They
25
cannot be discussed without also discussing the nature of these groups
26
and what classes and other social hierarchies they contain. Once we do
27
this, the anarchist opposition to nationalism becomes clear.
29
This means that anarchists distinguish between <b>nationality</b> (that is,
30
cultural affinity) and <b>nationalism</b> (confined to the state and government
31
itself). This allows us to define what we support and oppose -- nationalism,
32
at root, is destructive and reactionary, whereas cultural difference and
33
affinity is a source of community, social diversity and vitality.
35
Such diversity is to be celebrated and allowed to express it itself on its
36
own terms. Or, as Murray Bookchin puts it, <i>"[t]hat specific peoples should
37
be free to fully develop their own cultural capacities is not merely a
38
right but a desideratum. The world would be a drab place indeed if a
39
magnificent mosaic of different cultures does not replace the largely
40
decultured and homogenised world created by modern capitalism."</i>
41
[<i>"Nationalism and the 'National Question'"</i>, pp. 8-36. <b>Society and
42
Nature</b>, No. 5, pp. 28-29] But, as he also warns, such cultural freedom
43
and variety should <b>not</b> be confused with nationalism. The latter is far
44
more (and ethically, a lot less) than simple recognition of cultural
45
uniqueness and love of home. Nationalism is the love of, or the desire
46
to create, a nation-state and for this reason anarchists are opposed
47
to it, in all its forms.
49
This means that nationalism cannot and must not be confused with
50
nationality. The later is a product of social processes while the
51
former to a product of state action and elite rule. Social evolution
52
cannot be squeezed into the narrow, restricting borders of the nation
53
state without harming the individuals whose lives <b>make</b> that social
54
development happen in the first place.
56
The state, as we have seen, is a centralised body invested with power
57
and a social monopoly of force. As such it pre-empts the autonomy of
58
localities and peoples, and in the name of the "nation" crushes the
59
living, breathing reality of "nations" (i.e. peoples and their cultures)
60
with one law, one culture and one "official" history. Unlike most
61
nationalists, anarchists recognise that almost all "nations" are in
62
fact not homogeneous, and so consider nationality to be far wider in
63
application than just lines on maps, created by conquest. Hence we think
64
that recreating the centralised state in a slightly smaller area, as
65
nationalist movements generally advocate, cannot solve what is called
66
the "national question."
68
Ultimately, as Rudolf Rocker argued, the <i>"<b>nation is not the cause,
69
but the result of the state. It is the state that creates the nation,
70
not the nation the state</b>."</i> Every state <i>"is an artificial mechanism
71
imposed upon [people] from above by some ruler, and it never pursues
72
any other ends but to defend and make secure the interests of
73
privileged minorities within society."</i> Nationalism <i>"has never
74
been anything but the political religion of the modern state."</i>
75
[<b>Nationalism and Culture</b>, p. 200 and p. 201] It was created to
76
reinforce the state by providing it with the loyalty of a people
77
of shared linguistic, ethnic, and cultural affinities. And if
78
these shared affinities do not exist, the state will create them
79
by centralising education in its own hands, imposing an "official"
80
language and attempting to crush cultural differences from the
81
peoples within its borders.
83
This is because it treats groups of people not as unique individuals
84
but rather <i>"as if they were individuals with definite traits of
85
character and peculiar psychic properties or intellectual qualities"</i>
86
which <i>"must irrevocably lead to the most monstrously deceptive
87
conclusions."</i> [Rocker, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 437] This creates the theoretical
88
justification for authoritarianism, as it allows the stamping out of
89
all forms of individuality and local customs and cultures which do
90
not concur with the abstract standard. In addition, nationalism hides
91
class differences within the "nation" by arguing that all people
92
must unite around their supposedly common interests (as members of
93
the same "nation"), when in fact they have nothing in common due to
94
the existence of hierarchies and classes.
96
Malatesta recognised this when he noted that you cannot talk about
97
states like they were <i>"homogeneous ethnographic units, each
98
having its proper interests, aspirations, and mission, in opposition
99
to the interests, aspirations, and mission of rival units. This
100
may be true relatively, as long as the oppressed, and chiefly the
101
workers, have no self-consciousness, fail to recognise the injustice
102
of their inferior position, and make themselves the docile tools
103
of the oppressors."</i> In that case, it is <i>"the dominating class only
104
that counts"</i> and this <i>"owning to its desire to conserve and to
105
enlarge its power . . . may excite racial ambitions and hatred,
106
and send its nation, its flock, against 'foreign' countries, with
107
a view to releasing them from their present oppressors, and
108
submitting them to its own political and economical domination."</i>
109
Thus anarchists have <i>"always fought against patriotism, which is
110
a survival of the past, and serves well the interests of the
111
oppressors."</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 244]
113
Thus nationalism is a key means of obscuring class differences and
114
getting those subject to hierarchies to accept them as "natural."
115
As such, it plays an important role in keeping the current class
116
system going (unsurprisingly, the nation-state and its nationalism
117
arose at the same time as capitalism). As well dividing the
118
working class internationally, it is also used within a nation
119
state to turn working class people born in a specific nation against
120
immigrants. By getting native-born workers to blame newcomers, the
121
capitalist class weakens the resistance to their power as well as
122
turning economic issues into racial/nationalist ones. In practice,
123
however, nationalism is a <i>"state ideology"</i> which boils down to saying
124
it is <i>"'our country' as opposed to <b>theirs</b>, meaning <b>we</b> were the
125
serfs of the government first."</i> [Christie and Meltzer, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 71]
126
It tries to confuse love of where you grow up or live with <i>"love of
127
the State"</i> and so nationalism is <i>"not the faithful expression"</i> of
128
this natural feeling but rather <i>"an expression distorted by means
129
of a false abstraction, always for the benefit of an exploiting
130
minority."</i> [Bakunin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 324]
132
Needless to say, the nationalism of the bourgeoisie often comes
133
into direct conflict with the people who make up the nation it
134
claims to love. Bakunin simply stated a truism when he noted that
135
the capitalist class <i>"would rather submit"</i> to a <i>"foreign yoke
136
than renounce its social privileges and accept economic equality."</i>
137
This does not mean that the <i>"bourgeoisie is unpatriotic; on the
138
contrary patriotism, in the narrowest sense, is its essential
139
virtue. But the bourgeoisie love their country only because,
140
for them, the country, represented by the State, safeguards their
141
economic, political, and social privileges. Any nation withdrawing
142
their protection would be disowned by them, Therefore, for the
143
bourgeoisie, the country <b>is</b> the State. Patriots of the State,
144
they become furious enemies of the masses if the people, tried
145
of sacrificing themselves, of being used as a passive footstool
146
by the government, revolt against it. If the bourgeoisie had to
147
choose between the masses who rebel against the State"</i> and a
148
foreign invader, <i>"they would surely choose the latter."</i> [<b>Bakunin
149
on Anarchism</b>, pp. 185-6] Given this, Bakunin would have not
150
been surprised by either the rise of Fascism in Italy nor when
151
the Allies in post-fascist Italy <i>"crush[ed] revolutionary movements"</i>
152
and gave <i>"their support to fascists who made good by becoming
153
Allied Quislings."</i> [Marie-Louise Berneri, <b>Neither East Nor West</b>,
156
In addition, nationalism is often used to justify the most horrific
157
crimes, with the Nation effectively replacing God in terms of justifying
158
injustice and oppression and allowing individuals to wash their hands
159
of their own actions. For <i>"under cover of the nation everything can be
160
hid"</i> argues Rocker (echoing Bakunin, we must note). <i>"The national flag
161
covers every injustice, every inhumanity, every lie, every outrage,
162
every crime. The collective responsibility of the nation kills the
163
sense of justice of the individual and brings man to the point where
164
he overlooks injustice done; where, indeed, it may appear to him a
165
meritorious act if committed in the interests of the nation."</i> [<b>Op.
166
Cit.</b>, p. 252] So when discussing nationalism:
168
<i>"we must not forget that we are always dealing with the organised
169
selfishness of privileged minorities which hide behind the skirts of
170
the nation, hide behind the credulity of the masses. We speak of
171
national interests, national capital, national spheres of interest,
172
national honour, and national spirit; but we forget that behind all
173
this there are hidden merely the selfish interests of power-loving
174
politicians and money-loving business men for whom the nation is a
175
convenient cover to hide their personal greed and their schemes for
176
political power from the eyes of the world."</i> [Rocker, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
179
Hence we see the all too familiar sight of successful "national
180
liberation" movements replacing foreign oppression with a home-based
181
one. Nationalist governments introduce <i>"the worse features of the
182
very empires from which oppressed peoples have tried to shake loose.
183
Not only do they typically reproduce state machines that are as
184
oppressive as the ones that colonial powers imposed on them, but
185
they reinforce those machines with cultural, religious, ethnic,
186
and xenophobic traits that are often used to foster regional and
187
even domestic hatreds and sub-imperialisms."</i> [Bookchin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
188
p. 30] This is unsurprising as nationalism delivers power to local
189
ruling classes as it relies on taking state power. As a result,
190
nationalism can never deliver freedom to the working class (the vast
191
majority of a given "nation") as its function is to build a mass
192
support base for local elites angry with imperialism for blocking
193
their ambitions to rule and exploit "their" nation and fellow
196
In fact, nationalism is no threat to capitalism or even to
197
imperialism. It replaces imperialist domination with local elite
198
and foreign oppression and exploitation with native versions. That
199
sometimes the local elites, like imperial ones, introduce reforms
200
which benefit the majority does not change the nature of the new
201
regimes although this does potentially bring them into conflict
202
with imperialist powers. As Chomsky notes, for imperialism the
203
<i>"threat is not nationalism, but independent nationalism, which
204
focuses on the needs of the population, not merely the wealthy
205
sectors and the foreign investors to whom they are linked.
206
Subservient nationalism that does not succumb to these heresies
207
is quite welcome"</i> and it is <i>"quite willing to deal with them if
208
they are willing to sell the country to the foreign master, as
209
Third World elites (including now those in much of Eastern
210
Europe) are often quite willing to do, since they may greatly
211
benefit even as their countries are destroyed."</i> [<i>"Nationalism
212
and the New World Order"</i> pp. 1-7, <b>Society and Nature</b>, No. 5,
213
pp. 4-5] However, independent nationalism is like social democracy
214
in imperialist countries in that it may, at best, reduce the evils
215
of the class system and social hierarchies but it never gets rid
216
of them (at worse, it creates new classes and hierarchies clustered
217
around the state bureaucracy).
219
Anarchists oppose nationalism in all its forms as harmful to the
220
interests of those who make up a given nation and their cultural
221
identities. As Rocker put it, peoples and groups of peoples
222
have <i>"existed long before the state put in its appearance"</i> and
223
<i>"develop without the assistance of the state. They are only hindered
224
in their natural development when some external power interferes by
225
violence with their life and forces it into patterns which it has not
226
known before."</i> A nation, in contrast, <i>"encompasses a whole array of
227
different peoples and groups of peoples who have by more or less
228
violent means been pressed together into the frame of a common
229
state."</i> In other words, the <i>"nation is, then, unthinkable without
230
the state."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 201]
232
Given this, we do support nationality and cultural difference, diversity
233
and self-determination as a natural expression of our love of freedom
234
and support for decentralisation. This should not, however, be confused
235
with supporting nationalism. In addition, it goes without saying that
236
a nationality that take on notions of racial, cultural or ethnic
237
"superiority" or "purity" or believe that cultural differences are
238
somehow rooted in biology get no support from anarchists. Equally
239
unsurprisingly, anarchists have been the most consistent foes of
240
that particularly extreme form of nationalism, fascism (<i>"a
241
politico-economic state where the ruling class of each country
242
behaves towards its own people as . . . it has behaved to the colonial
243
peoples under its heel."</i> [Bart de Ligt, <b>The Conquest of Violence</b>,
244
p. 74]). Moreover, we do not support those aspects of specific
245
cultures which reflect social hierarchies (for example, many
246
traditional cultures have sexist and homophobic tendencies). By
247
supporting nationality, we do not advocate tolerating these. Nor do
248
the negative aspects of specific cultures justify another state
249
imposing its will on it in the name of "civilising" it. As history
250
shows, such "humanitarian" intervention is just a mask for justifying
251
imperialist conquest and exploitation and it rarely works as cultural
252
change has to flow from below, by the actions of the oppressed
253
themselves, in order to be successful.
255
In opposition to nationalism, Anarchists are <i>"proud of being
256
internationalists."</i> We seek <i>"the end of all oppression and of all
257
exploitation,"</i> and so aim <i>"to awaken a consciousness of the antagonism
258
of interests between dominators and dominated, between exploiters and
259
workers, and to develop the class struggle inside each country, and
260
the solidarity among all workers across the frontiers, as against
261
any prejudice and any passion of either race or nationality."</i>
262
[Malatesta, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 244]
264
We must stress that anarchists, being opposed to all forms of
265
exploitation and oppression, are against a situation of external
266
domination where the one country dominates the people and territory
267
of another country (i.e., imperialism -- see <a href="secD5.html">section D.5</a>). This
268
flows from our basic principles as <i>"[t]rue internationalism will
269
never be attained except by the independence of each nationality,
270
little or large, compact or disunited -- just as anarchy is in the
271
independence of each individual. If we say no government of man over
272
man, how can [we] permit the government of conquered nationalities
273
by the conquering nationalities?"</i> [Kropotkin, quoted by Martin A.
274
Miller, <b>Kropotkin</b>, p. 231] As we discuss in the <a href="secD7.html">next section</a>,
275
while rejecting Nationalism anarchists do not necessarily oppose
276
national liberation struggles against foreign domination.
b'\\ No newline at end of file'
added
removed
html/secD6.html
