Talk:Anarchism and nationalism

Merge Proposal

See discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_anarchism#Merge_Proposal

Alternative Socialism and Black Ram

I'm a little worried that this might be construed as unreliably sourced or as original research. However, my sources are objectively 'out there' (even if they are rather hard to get hold of these days -- and for all I know, I may possess the only surviving copies of Black Ram) and I don't think simply summarising their stated positions counts as original research. Secondly, reliable and authoritative primary sources about the positions of a political movement (however obscure) are surely the published literature of the movement itself, not necessarily some academic journal of political analysis. So I have (boldly!) added this material on Alternative Socialism and Black Ram, because I think it deserves to be clarified that far-right and black nationalisms are not the only varieties of anarcho-nationalism in town.

Exact references will be inserted as soon as I dig them out of my archives. But I think the data that I have added here does make clear that there have been currents of nationalist anarchism which are not connected with either National-Anarchism or Black Anarchism and would appear to pre-date both. This is sufficient reason to maintain 'Nationalist Anarchism' as a separate article with a broader subject matter or, if they are merged, to incorporate National Anarchism as a subsection of it. 172.141.198.21 02:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I reckon the opening definition of anarcho-nationalism (and Black Ram was already using the term back in 1982) now looks well obsolete. Separatism may well characterise the newer varieties but played no declared or necessary role in the earlier ones. 172.141.198.21 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not absolutely sure about the details of AS's foundation, and the autobiography on Monica Sjöö's website suggests she was not in it right at the beginning, so I will err on the side of caution and describe Paton and Sjöö simply as 'key members', although Paton was certainly a founder-member.

Both were anti-racist and probably neither would have descr ibed themselves as 'nationalist' yet the völkisch inspiration/input is undeniable and was explicitly articulated by Paton. By contrast, Black Ram was entirely at home with the idea of nationalism and used all the terms which seem to get people buzzing today: 'anarcho-nationalist', 'anarchist nationalism' and even 'National Anarchist', as well as 'völkisch anarchism' and 'folkish-anarchist'.

Despite this difference, I can say as a matter of personal experience that AS had a direct if unacknowledged influence on Black Ram, but it might be difficult to establish just from the groups' literature (and would constitute 'original research'?) so I am simply calling it a 'precursor'. 172.159.1.214 15:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the term 'anarcho-nationalism'

This may have been coined twice and needed further explanation, which I'm putting in a footnote for now, but I might incorporate it into the main text later on, after I've reorganised the article (it could do with broader historical context and a properly chronological ordering). I'm certain about the usage in Black Ram but I'm not so clear about the term's more recent history so please elaborate if you can. Gnostrat 01:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify term

In one of the sections there is a mention of "black input." Does that mean black people, or does it refer to some political in-group term? That should be made clear in the article. Spylab 12:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference was to black people, and it was a hang-over from a previous version of the article in which it was immediately preceded by Black anarchism. In the present context it looks a little pointless so I've removed it. Gnostrat 17:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Proto Fascists, Nazis, racists and other scum

Anyone who professes to be an "anarcho-nationalist" (which comes up with less then 600 hits on Google as of now) is obviously misguided about what anarchism is. They instead seem to use the concept as an excuse for segregation. This is completely unanarchistic.

I would say that this page has far too much information then the size of the "ideology" warrants.

I'd call for it to be deleted, except that I know there are people on Wikipedia who want to keep every misnamed irrelevant thing under the sun. (Speaking as a true anarchist here.) 81.232.51.243 03:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read the article very carefully. Most of the currents/groups covered here came out of a mainstream anarchist tradition of anti-racism, and on that basis defined themselves as nationalist because the latter term originally conveyed a positive approach in favour of ethnic diversity and cultural survival. They didn't necessarily advocate "segregation" (or as I would call it, separatism) as the ideal but they did defend the right of any group, of any race, to resort to it if they were desperate enough to feel they had to - if, say, the alternative were absorption by another culture and consequent extinction.

Speaking personally, I'm neither for nor against separatism; I can visualise many survival strategies short of that. But I fail to see just what is so anarchist or libertarian about forcing people to mix, merge or integrate against their will? Doesn't that amount to ethnic or cultural genocide? Last I checked, genocide was about as racist as you can possibly get.

The "ideology", by the way, covers Proudhon, Bakunin, Herzen, Landauer, some people think Kropotkin and Makhno too. That's some pretty influential figures. I'd say the size of the movement today is no reflection of its size in the 19th century (when it didn't need a distinctive name of its own because just about all anarchists were nationalists), nor of its historical importance. Too much information? You haven't seen nearly enough yet. Gnostrat 04:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to anyone unfortunate enough to stumble across this article. National anarchism doesn't exist. Anti-fascism, anti-racism, and anti-nationalism are at the core of anarchist ideology. this is just an attempt by the nazis to invade our movement. pay no attention to this bullshit.:: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.92.101.56 (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

It's tiresome having to respond to people who post comments like the above without having read the article, which clearly distinguishes between National Anarchism (with its so-called "far right" connections, though that doesn't technically make it fascist), and other sorts of nationalist anarchism whose roots lay in the anti-racist and anti-fascist "mainstream" of the anarchist movement. I am one of two main contributors to this article and if you bother to check my user page and Talk page you will find I am quite open about my politics including my history in the anarchist movement and my explicit rejection of racism and fascism. I don't presume to speak for the other guy but I think you will find his anti-racist credentials are impeccable. There is no nazi conspiracy here. I will be reverting your changes to the article on account of their opinionated as distinct from straightforwardly matter-of-fact tone. How, without a worldwide census, do you substantiate that a majority is "vast"? And if anarchists were being "traditional" (rather than simply mainstream), wouldn't they have picked up on their founders' nationalist inclinations? Gnostrat 06:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I should point out that a part of this article was moved here from National anarchism after being repeatedly vandalised by someone who claimed it was a plot to discredit National-Anarchists! When each side accuses you of working for the other lot, you know you're getting pretty close to even-handed. Gnostrat 09:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the allegations that this is some sort of conspiracy (although the language of the text does seem to do a good job of smearing anarchism, whether or not intentionally) but I'm fairly certain that, strictly speaking, the term nationalist anarchism is an oxymoron. I could probably write a fairly involved essay on why the two terms are reconcilable, but I'll just keep it down to a couple sentences. Anarchists value freedom, including freedom of movement. Even in its most non-controversial form, nationalism requires the observance of some kind of border. Now as an anarchist, I feel that I have no right to interfere with people choosing their company, even if they choose to be with people exclusively of their own color. But it seems a bit much for someone claiming to be an anarchist to make this the central tenet of their position.

Furthermore, the apparent connection between fascism and anarchism is tenuous at best. Bakunin and Proudhon were men of their times, which certainly doesn't excuse them from possessing racist views, but takes some power away from the association between anarchism and fascism. You wouldn't say that democracy is racist because Thomas Jefferson had slaves. Furthermore, at best, it's very stupid to use the swastika as a symbol for a group that's already going to draw heavy fire from mainstream anarchists (hey, I'm finally in the mainstream!). Even if you wanted to "take back" the swastika from Nazis, you probably should have principles and language that don't so strongly mirror that of the Nazis.

Aside from the ideological inconsistencies, this article is badly written, definitely POV, and contains original research and intentionally misleading statements. It's very possible that this article could contain some useful and interesting (if inhumanly annoyed to anarchists) information, but I really don't see it in the article right now. I would look it, but frankly I find the entire topic somewhat disgraceful, and don't want to wade through a bunch of writing by people desperately pretending they're not Fascists. I'm aware the previous sentence was biased and potentially incorrect, and that's another reason I'm not gonna do any editting on this article. --Hisownspace 17:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, some intelligent and reasonably civil criticism at last. To take your points roughly in order:

(1) Nationalist anarchism is an oxymoron if you think nation and state go together. If you conceive of a nation as a territory without a state, or a diaspora without a territory, there is no contradiction. Anarchism in its basic meaning is about absence of government, and there have been numbers of mainstream anarchists who, confronted with the question of what keeps people from preying on each other in the absence of state coercion, fall back on something very like the tyranny of public opinion, which is another form of coercion, only they just don't care to make it explicit. Anarcho-nationalism is at least honest: if and when it acknowledges borders (and Alternative Socialism seems to have advocated a sort of patriotism without borders), it doesn't conceal that they may have to be defended by force but would simply argue that for outside people to impose their presence, unwanted and unasked-for, upon a community which is already functioning fine without them is also coercive and, in large enough numbers (as with the 'swamping' of Palestinians by Zionists, or Fijians by Indians, or Kosovo Serbs by Albanians, or indigenous Americans by both whites and blacks) is positively ethnocidal. Since I abhor ethnocide, I'm in favour of every people having its own space on the earth. But it's for the folk who live in a place to decide how exclusive they want to be, and I don't personally object to mixed communities if it's what people want. I don't really want to rehash my previous arguments so I'll simply refer to the discussion here. It's pretty unimportant what I think since we all have opinions and they don't alter our responsibility to write neutrally, but the argument is relevant insofar as I'm attempting to answer the criticism that anarchist nationalism is ideologically inconsistent. Unless of course we're going to be total individualists, societies have identities too, and stateless peoples will still need to defend their borders (though a confederal anarchist world could probably do this by mutual agreements without resort to warfare).

(2) I can't see how the language used by the Black Ram group "strongly mirrors the Nazis". If you check out the quote from Black Ram in my contribution to the discussion here, you'll find it's pretty damn far from the Nazis in spirit and intent. However, the swastika thing wasn't just about taking back a symbol, it stood for the reclaiming of ideas too. The point, for Black Ram (and this is my own analysis too), was that the Nazis stole those principles and language from early 20th-century populists and counterculturalists in the first place. Nazis have no right to them, but they are important because they signpost the continuation of older currents of socialism concerned with ethnicity, land and culture, which Marxist economic determinism sidelined. As a result, socialists withdrew from activism across a whole range of fronts, and what remained of the old pre-Marxist, utopian socialisms — finding no other outlet — was forced into opposition to the Marxist-monopolised Left. One of the things which they turned into was fascism. But it didn't have to happen that way, and if we don't want it to happen again — so runs the Alternative Socialism/Black Ram analysis — then socialists of a more libertarian persuasion have to get back into the whole volkisch, ethno-cultural arena. If we nowadays think these concerns sound Nazi, that's because "the Nazis nicked them from us, not us from them" — and also because Marxist class-warriors (and mainstream anarchists, most of whom are failed Marxists anyhow) have a clear interest in keeping these areas off-limits and 'Nazifying' anybody who dissents.

(3) What makes you think the article is trying to make a connection between anarchism and fascism? Two sections are wholly about nationalist anarchisms that had zero connection with fascism. If the article has a real fault, it's that it doesn't make the anarchism/fascism link strongly enough. I could point to anarcho-syndicalist input into Mussolini's early thinking, or the Vichy regime promoting Proudhon as the father of true French socialism, or Julius Evola's concept of the non-governing state. (Please don't assume that this would be "smearing" anarchism. Objectively reporting links, influences, parallels etc. doesn't mean I approve of the fascist use of anarchist theoreticians. On the other hand, your observation about Proudhon and Bakunin as "men of their times" does raise the question: on what basis, other than a possibly slavish and certainly arbitrary adherence to the values of our times, do we presume to stand in judgment, disassembling ideologies, choosing which bits to keep and which to discard? If Proudhon and Bakunin were resurrected tomorrow, would they recognise mainstream anarchism as being anarchist at all — or as a gross distortion of what they really meant? Maybe they would even define themselves as anarcho-nationalists!)

(4) "Badly written, definitely POV, original research & intentionally misleading statements" — please elaborate and I'll see what I can do. There could be individual POV statements but I don't think the article is pushing one point of view overall. It's tracing trajectories and describing positions. Some of it isn't sourced (I mislaid some of my sources and then got tied down on other articles) but the Black Ram stuff relies on primary sources and is straightforwardly descriptive, so I hope you're not claiming it as original research.

(5) "People desperately pretending they're not Fascists". Is that directed at the subject matter of this article? Or at us contributors? — I hope not; editors don't have to fend off talk of crypto-fascism for trying to write about groups and movements which some people might wish they could categorise as fascist. To report is not (necessarily) to advocate. Hell, I've tried to give a fair account of 'patriotic' anarchist positions with feminist underpinning and I'm not even remotely feminist! Gnostrat 07:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)