user preferences

New Events

Russia / Ukraine / Belarus

no event posted in the last week

Anarchists Support Self-Determination for Ukraine

category russia / ukraine / belarus | anarchist movement | debate author Sunday May 28, 2023 07:21author by Wayne Priceauthor email drwdprice at aol dot com Report this post to the editors

What Did Bakunin Say About National Self-Determination?

This is a response to a challenge by Tridni Valka, a Czech anarchist group. They denounced an article of mine. I had defended anarchists who support the Ukrainian people in the Ukraine-Russian war.

Bakunin and other anarchists have supported oppressed nations and national self-determination, as part of their revolutionary program, as I demonstrate.
Photo: Alexander Ermochenko/Reuters/Alamy
Photo: Alexander Ermochenko/Reuters/Alamy

The Debate Goes On

Alex Alder wrote an article, “British Anarchism Succumbs to War Fever.” (Alder 2023) He was unhappy that many British, Eastern European, and other anarchists were supporting the Ukrainian people against the imperialist Russian invasion. I argued against his view in, “Are Anarchists Giving in to War Fever? In Defense of Anarchists Who Support the Ukrainian People.” (Price 2023)

My article was republished on the website of the Czech Anarchist Federation. Then Tridni Valka (Class War), another Czech anarchist grouping, wrote an angry response, denouncing my (and the Anarchist Federation’s) support for the Ukrainian people’s resistance. (Tridni Valka 2023) “The delay in our brief response can only be explained by the fact that it took us a long time to recover from [Wayne Price’s] text…” This is my response, in which I will try to cover key aspects of their argument.

Bakunin’s Views on National Self-Determination

Central to T.V.’s argument is a denial that anarchists might support any oppressed people or nation. “That ‘anarchists’ operate with the concept of nation is new to us! … Anarchists are opposed to nationhood and its material consequences such as the nation-state [and] national self-determination….Revolutionary anarchists have always held anti-national positions….”

This statement is factually untrue. It confuses the nation (community, people, country) and the nation-state (national government, with its ideology of nationalism) which anarchists have indeed always opposed. I have previously written an article on the anarchist Errico Malatesta, comrade of Bakunin and Kropotkin. (Price 2022) I demonstrated that he had supported the national rebellions and self-determination of oppressed peoples, even as he opposed wars between imperialist states (particularly World War I). But what was the opinion of Michael Bakunin, among the first revolutionary anarchists?

In his selection of Bakunin’s writings, Sam Dolgoff writes, "Bakunin argues that the nation-state is not a natural community. He defines the contrast between Nationality, ones natural love for the place and the people...and Patriotism, the absolute power of the state over its native subjects and conquered national minorities." (1980; p. 401)

Then he quotes Bakunin: “Nationality, like individuality, is a natural fact. It denotes the inalienable right of individuals, groups, associations, and regions to their own way of life. And this way of life is the product of a long historical development [a confluence of human beings with a common history, language, and a common cultural background]. And this is why *I will always champion the cause of oppressed nationalities struggling to liberate themselves* from the domination of the state.” (Dolgoff, 1980, p. 401. My emphasis.)

By “the state” in this passage, he refers to the foreign state which dominates the oppressed nationality. By “ a natural fact,” he means, not that nationality is a biological fact, but that it is created mostly by unplanned, unpurposive, social history.
Bakunin also wrote, “Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principle of freedom.” (quoted in Bonanno 1990, pp. 20–21)

Also, "Each individual, each association, commune, or province, each region and nation, has the absolute right to determine its own fate, to associate with others or not, to ally itself with whomever it will, or break any alliance....The right to unite freely and [to] separate with the same freedom is the most important of all political rights, without which confederation will always be disguised centralization.” (quoted in Guerin, Anarchism, 1970, p. 67)

In his book on anarchism, Daniel Guerin interpreted this statement: “True internationalism rests on self-determination, which implies the right of secession..” (p. 67) Guerin goes so far as to suggest that “Lenin… adopted this concept from Bakunin.” This is unlikely, since Lenin had little regard for anarchist theory. The concept was already widely known by that time.

As T.V. recognizes, the right of national self-determination was a bourgeois-democratic demand, created by capitalism, along with such demands as free speech, freedom of association, land to the peasants, the right to bear arms, election of officials, and so on. However, capitalism never fully granted these demands, especially now in its epoch of decline. They can only be consistently won through a revolution of the workers and oppressed. Therefore the fight for bourgeois-democratic demands has revolutionary implications in our time.

“For Bakunin, then, the achievement of national liberation had to be linked to the broader struggle for an international revolution. If nationality was separate from the state…it did not need the state for emancipation….” (van den Walt & Schmidt 2009; p. 64)

Nor was Lenin’s concept of national self-determination exactly the same as that of anarchists. Lenin argued that self-determination would result in voluntary merger into a world state which was homogeneous, integrated, and centralized. Anarchists aim for a decentralized, regionalized, and pluralistic world, with peoples connecting through networks and federations.

It should be clear that Bakunin (also Malatesta, and Dolgoff and Guerin) would not have agreed with T.V. that all “Anarchists are opposed to nationhood and…have always held anti-national positions…,” including opposition to national self-determination. Opposition to nationhood and anti-nationality is the opinion of T.V., but it is not the “anarchist” tradition.

This is summarized in Zoe Barker’s recent overview of anarchism: “For anarchists, this commitment to universal human solidarity entailed an opposition to imperialism and colonialism and the support of anti-colonial national liberation movements, such as those in Cuba, India, and Ireland. According to Maximoff, ‘the anarchists demand the liberation of all colonies and support every struggle for national independence….’ “ (2023; pp. 109-110)

She follows with the important addition, “This support included the belief that the main goal of national liberation movements—emancipation—could only be achieved through the methods of anarchism, rather than the establishment of a new state.” (same)

That is, the program of “nationalism” could lead to a formally independent state (as it did in Cuba, India, and Ireland), with its own flag, its own currency and postage stamps, its own president, army, police, and capitalists. The nation’s workers are still being exploited. True emancipation from the imperialist-dominated world market and great-power politics, will require an international working class revolution. Anarchists participate in national liberation struggles in order to spread this awareness and work toward this goal. As Lucien van der Walt writes, many anarchists seek

“…to participate in national liberation struggles in order to shape them, win the battle of ideas, [and] displace nationalism with a politics of national liberation through class struggle….Nationalism is only one current in national liberation or anti-imperialist struggles…National liberation struggles could develop into a variety of outcomes.” (van den Walt & Schmidt 2009; pp. 310-11)

I present all these quotations and citations, not because I think that Bakunin and other anarchists were always correct—which I do not. I am trying to refute the smugly ignorant claim that all “Anarchists are opposed to nationhood and…national self-determination.”

During the War

In summary, (1) revolutionary anarchists support the wars of oppressed nations against imperialists. These are not the same as wars where both sides are imperialist. (2) revolutionary anarchists are always in opposition to states, even including the states of oppressed nations, advocating popular revolutions against them.

This raises the question of what anarchists should be doing when a national war is raging (as in Ukraine versus Russian imperialist aggression) but they are too weak as yet for there to be a revolution against the state.

In my paper (the one which T.V. took so long to “recover from”), I used the example of the Spanish Civil War/Revolution (1936-39). The issue was not national self-determination but a fascist-military attempt to overthrow the established bourgeois-democratic government. The government was run by a “Popular Front” coalition of Socialists, Stalinists, liberal politicians, and the main anarcho-syndicalist organizations (the CNT union and the FAI anarchist federation). While fighting the fascist armies, the Popular Front proceded to re-build the weakened democratic capitalist state.

This policy was opposed by a revolutionary wing of the anarchists and syndicalists. (Evans 2020) One part of this wing was the Friends of Durruti Group. They called on the anarchist organizations to quit the government, to promote federations of self-managed industries and farms, to expropriate the capitalists and big landholders, and to federate workers and farmers councils and unions into a central body to run the war. Meanwhile by propaganda and action, they sought to persuade the majority of the working class to overturn the Popular Front regime and to make a revolution which could effectively defeat the fascist forces.

But they did not call on the workers to quit the armed forces which were fighting the fascist armies. After all, they criticized the Popular Front government for many things, but not for fighting the fascist military! (Similarly, anarchists should condemn the Ukrainian state for many things, but not for resisting the Russian invasion.)

Nor would the workers have understood a call for abandoning the army. They would have seen it as proposing surrender. (Similarly today, if anarchists told the Ukrainian workers to stop fighting because the Ukrainian army was organized by a bourgeois national state, the workers would rightly see this as a call to surrender to the Russians.)

The Friends of Durruti wrote, “There must be no collaboration with capitalism whether outside the bourgeois state or from within the government itself. As producers our place is in the unions….[But] class struggle is no obstacle to fight on in the battlefields and working in the war factories.

“….Revolutionary workers must not shoulder official posts nor establish themselves in the ministries. For as long as the war lasts, collaboration is permissible—on the battlefield, in the trenches, on the parapets, and in productive labor in the rearguard.” (Friends of Durruti Group 1978; pp. 35 & 38)

In fact, none of the Ukrainian anarchists, most of whom support the war effort, have joined the government, joined Zelensky’s party, called for votes for his party, or participated in the government in any other way.

T.V. disputes my understanding of the Friends of Durruti (FoD). “Wayne Price…didn’t understand their critique of the united front in the least.” (Actually the FoD did not critique the “united front”—a coalition of workers’ organizations. They advocated an alliance of revolutionary organizations. What they opposed was the “Popular Front”, the coalition of workers’ parties with capitalist parties as well as Stalinists.) T.V. points out that the FoD did not only oppose governmental collaboration of anarchists with political parties. They also opposed anarchists working outside of government to further capitalist aims—the effort to rebuild the bourgeois democratic Spanish state. I did not say otherwise.

But T.V. goes on to criticize the FoD themselves. “The Friends of Durruti did not demand the withdrawal of the anarchists from the front, but this proved to be a decisive error….” But the FoD did not advocate that anarchist fighters passively carry out the program of the collaborationists. They tried to create a revolutionary strategy of action to lead to revolution. Their “decisive error” was in not organizing soon enough to build a revolutionary alternative to the reformist leadership of the anarchists and socialists.
Class Reductionism

The basic method of T.V. is that of class reductionism, a crude (and illegitimate) version of Marxism. I take the essence of anarchism to be opposition to all forms of domination. Exploitation of the modern working class by the bourgeoisie, integrated with the state, is central to all oppression. It supports all non-class forms of oppression, and is, in turn, supported by them. This includes the oppression of women, African-Americans and other People of Color, LGBTQ people, people with “disabilities,” youth, as well as (our topic) national oppression. But while class exploitation overlaps with all other oppressions, they are not reducible to class exploitation. They also have their own dynamics.

But to T.V., the only oppression worth considering is the proletariat’s exploitation by capitalism. All others are distractions. T.V. and I agree that the working class needs to overcome its divisions into women and men, African Americans and Euro-Americans, straights and LGBTQ people, Czechs and Slovaks, Ukrainians and Russians, etc. These divisions cannot be overcome by ignoring them but only by defending the needs and freedoms of everyone, especially the most oppressed, the most exploited, including peoples facing the terror of imperialist aggression.

T.V. accuses the Czech Anarchist Federation and myself as being partially “in the camp of the warmongers who support the mutual massacre of proletarians in Ukraine.” This shows how far they have deviated from reality, in the service of their schematic abstractions. One side has chosen to make war. That is the imperialist state of Russia. It has invaded and occupied Ukraine, blown up its villages and cities, massacred its inhabitants, raped its women, tortured soldiers and civilians, kidnapped children, risked nuclear accidents at reactors, and sought to wipe out the Ukrainians as a culturally distinct people. The Ukrainian people have had the temerity to resist, which I suppose makes them “mutual warmongers” to T.V.—and to the Russian state. There is a French saying, “The animal is vicious. When attacked it defends itself.”

The anarchist-communists have not (yet?) persuaded the Ukrainian workers to overthrow capitalism and the state. So (unfortunately) the nationwide resistance is organized and led by the bourgeois state—although there is much bottom-up voluntary organizing. Lacking its own arms, the state has gotten military aid from Western imperialists. These do not really care about such things as democracy or national self-determination. They are out to expand their influence and weaken their Russian rival. But the Ukrainians have the right to take arms from whomever will offer them, rather than be crushed. Yet they should not be too trusting of the US and NATO, which would betray them in a breath, if it seemed to be in the imperialists’ interests.

I would not advise Ukrainian anarchists on their immediate tactics. But their overall strategy should have two interconnected goals. One is to drive out the Russians and defend the independence of the Ukrainians. The other is to spread the program of anarchism among the workers, soldiers, and other Ukrainians, with the eventual goal of an anti-state, anti-capitalist, revolution—by the working class and all oppressed, internationally. Even now, there is a need to oppose the government’s neo-liberal austerity and union-busting and to oppose nationalism in general and the far-right in particular.

The left, and not just anarchists, is deeply divided over the Ukraine-Russian war. The fundamental issue is whether to be on the side of the workers and other Ukrainians who are fighting for their very lives and independence, or whether to side with imperial elites offering only domination and destruction.


Alder, Alex (2023). “British Anarchism Succumbs to War Fever.”

Baker, Zoe (2023). Means and Ends; The Revolutionary Practice of Anarchism in Europe and the United States. Chico CA: AK Press.

Bonanno (1990). Anarchism and the National Liberation Struggle.

Dolgoff, Sam (ed.) (1980) Bakunin On Anarchism. Montreal CAN: Black Rose Books.

Evans, Danny (2020). Revolution and the State; Anarchism in the Spanish Civil War 1936—1939. Chico CA: AK Press.

Friends of Durruti Group (1978/1935). Towards a Fresh Revolution.
Sanday Orkney: Cienfuegos Press.

Guerin, Daniel (1970). Anarchism. NY: Monthly Review Press.

Price, Wayne (2022). “Malatesta on War and National Self-Determination” search_text=Wayne+Price

Price, Wayne (2023). “Are Anarchists Giving in to War Fever? In Defense of Anarchists Who Support the Ukrainian People.”

Tridni Valka (May 2023) “What’s New in ‘Anarchism’? National Self-determination and the Coincidence of Interests with Capital?!”

van der Walt, Lucien, & Schmidt, Michael (2009). Black Flame; The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism. Oakland CA: AK Press.

*written for

author by Czech Anarchistpublication date Wed May 31, 2023 05:21author address author phone Report this post to the editors

It is important to note that the grouping Třídní Válka is not part of the Czech anarchist movement, has never been seen on the streets, has never organized any real action, and it is questionable whether it has more than one member.

author by Ilan Shalif - ainfos.capublication date Fri Jun 02, 2023 17:13author email ilan.shalif at gmail dot comauthor address Israelauthor phone Report this post to the editors

In the world class society order (neo-Liberalist global capitalism) the ruling capitalist elite of one state my start war against another state ruled by its own ruling capitalist elite causing suffering to the wage slaves of that country (and also to these of the initiator).
For sure the anarchists should be against it and even do something abot it... But, it dose not include joining the army of the attacked state or taking arms independently - endangering their life and the life of wage slaves recruited to the army of the attacking country.
The old call of "No war but class war" was never more correct than in the case of Russia versus Ukraine.
The support for the attacked is not for the fulfilment of the capitalist right of "national self determination" but suport of people of one ethnic group/region to resist the exploitation, suppression and attack by a foreign entity.

The facts are clear enough and no need to quote famous people to justify the obvious.

In the case of Paletine/Israel the anarchists support the struggle of the indigenous Palestinians NOT in the name of "the right of the Palestinians for national self determination" (to be ruled and exploited by their own capitalist elite)... But against the ethnic cleansing transfer, the suppression, and exploitation of the Palestinian masses.

Related Link:
author by Wayne Pricepublication date Sun Jun 04, 2023 11:31author email drwdprice at aol dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Ilan begins by describing how “the ruling capitalist elite of one state my start war against another [capitalist-ruled] state.” True, but he does not distinguish between a war between an imperialist capitalist state attacking a non-imperialist one, and an imperialist state attacking another imperialist state. These are not the same.

However he calls for “support for the attacked” (referring to Ukraine) right after saying this “does not include joining the army of the attacked state or taking arms independently.” Thus contradicting himself. How can you support the attacked in a war unless you support either joining the army or taking up arms independently?

Then he says, “The support for the attacked is not for the fulfilment of the capitalist right of ‘national self determination’ but suport of people of one ethnic group/region to resist the …attack by a foreign entity.” But what is the difference here? An ethnic group/region may rightly be called a people, or country, or nation. Its defense of its independence is self-determination.

Perhaps what he means is that anarchists do not support a (non-imperialist) state which is attacked but would support the people (the nation) which is attacked? If so I agree with the basic idea—we are not for the Ukrainian state or its rich oligarchs, but for the Ukrainian workers, farmers, middle class, and poor. These are bombed and massacred by Russian armed forces. We stand with them. (At the moment, as there is no independent mass militia, they have to fight using the Ukrainian state’s armed forces, but should not stop raising anarchist thinking.)

author by walter - tax prep near mepublication date Fri Jun 09, 2023 18:54author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I had no idea all of these items existed. Thank you for sharing!

author by Kara - route plannerpublication date Mon Jun 12, 2023 11:05author email dgfg at gmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

I have learned many new and interesting things from reading your post and hope you will post more interesting information in the near future.

author by Ilan Shalif - ainfos.capublication date Tue Jun 13, 2023 20:21author email ilan.shalif at gmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

War between Russian imperialist and Ukraine non imperialist states is still war among capitalists not worth killing and being killed.
Solidarity with victims of imperialist attack can be done in many ways that do not include taking arms. People all over the world - including Russia express support for the Ukrainian people in non armed direct actions.
Anarchists express their solidarity by stating their opinions, by non armed direct actions, by non military social help, etc.
When anarchists support striking workers they seldom - if at all take arms.
In supporti of indigenous people in Palestine we do not take arms in spite being shot on by army - we just join the non armed popular struggle.
Defence against attak on an ethnic group is not only by forming an independent administration/state.
The keeping of the integrity of the present Ukrainian ruling elite is not the only option the Ukrainians can choose. This administration/ elite was a result of a coup - not of self-determination of the Ukrainian people. (It seems most of them prefer emigration.)

Related Link:
author by Mazenpublication date Thu Jun 15, 2023 05:39author email author address author phone Report this post to the editors

What do you want exactly Wayne ? Why talking to the few anarchists who adore Bakunin or Malatesta while it’s more rational to address Mr. Biden or Olaf Scholz to keep the billions, the tanks and missiles coming … Can’t understand what exactly you want us to do , what type or form of support you expect from anarchists … Unfortunately any article in any tabloid newspaper could be more critical of NATO or Zelenskyy than you do … You win comrades , anarchists should support militarisation and national conflicts and wars , and don’t be afraid , those who oppose that can’t stop the multi billion arms deals that are going on , your Ukrainians will stay independent and their cultural identity would be safe , even if their country will be devastated and full of martyrs , you know , thousands of them , for their motherland …

author by Wayne Pricepublication date Mon Jun 19, 2023 05:59author email drwdprice at aol dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Both Ilan Shalif and Mazen want to jump into discussions of what practical activities can be done right now by the readers of this site to help the Ukrainian people. But this skips a step. The first question is: do we support the Ukrainian people against the imperialist Russian invaders? Are we in solidarity with the Ukrainian workers against the aggressors? Do we want the Ukrainians to win and the Russian forces to loose?

If the answer is NO, because it “is still war among capitalists not worth killing or being killed”—then there is nothing left to discuss. If the answer is YES, then we can discuss practical matters such as how to aid the Ukrainians.

I note that most Ukrainians—including most Ukrainian anarchists and socialists—think that it is worth fighting to “stay independent and [keep] their cultural identity safe.” That is their opinion, not yours Mazen or Ilan or mine. It is their decision to make, which is what national self-determination means. (And Ilan’s opinion of the Maidan rebellion as a “coup” has nothing to do with the present government of Zelensky—which no Ukrainian anarchists supports anyway—nor with the justification of Russia’s barbaric invasion.)

As an internationalist, I follow mass struggles all over the world, especially those in which the U.S. state or its allies (e.g., Israel) is the aggressor. I also follow those in which the U.S. is not immediately involved (e.g. Myanmar) or in which other imperialisms are directly involved (e.g. Tibet, the Uyghurs, Taiwan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kurds, and, of course Ukraine). I am part of a world wide discussion within the international anarchist movement (which is the point of the Anarkismo site!).

What do I want you to do, Mazen? First get your head on straight and get behind the oppressed when they are attacked by imperialist aggressors.

author by Mazenpublication date Tue Jun 20, 2023 05:25author email author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Not a Word on NATO or corrupt Ukrainian leaders , this is not very wise … Even ABC or Foxnews won’t be so careless

author by Ainz - drywall repair near mepublication date Fri Jun 30, 2023 10:11author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Bakunin's support for national self-determination can be seen in his writings and actions.

author by Ilan Shalif - ainfos.capublication date Sat Jul 01, 2023 17:08author email ilan.shalif at gmail dot comauthor address Tel Avivauthor phone Report this post to the editors

Principle positions of anarchists are note based on the present opinions of the majority of the masses. "No war but class war" is not less important than "never vote for the lesser evil in capitalist election".
Though anarchists are seldom indifferent regarding the results of election, the refusing to vote have much more value in the anarchist education.
So is the refusing to take arms in protecting a capitalist state even when it is a victim of Imperialist attack.
(To my knowledge no anarchist-feminists proposed to take arms or join the police to intervene against abusive husbands.)

author by Waynepublication date Mon Jul 10, 2023 06:55author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Ilan is apparently for "the refusing to take arms in protecting a capitalist state even when it is a victim of Imperialist attack."

Unfortunately it is not just the capitalist state of Ukraine which is under imperialist attack. It is also the Ukrainian people--the workers, farmers, poor, women, LGBT people, and everyone. The Russian state does not just propose to take over the Ukrainian state, but to incorporate the whole Ukrainian people into Greater Russia, to wipe out its language, culture, and history, to destroy the limited democratic rights which Ukrainians have enjoyed, and to massacre those who resist, as well as to take over its workers and resources for the profits of Russian businesspeople.

The Ukrainians have every reason to take arms in protecting the people who are a victim of imperialist attack. Just as the Palestinian people have every reason to take arms to defend themselves as a people from the Zionist state, despite the nationalist and ultra-religious misleaders of their movement.

Number of comments per page
This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Deutsch

Front page

Support Sudanese anarchists in exile

Joint Statement of European Anarchist Organizations

International anarchist call for solidarity: Earthquake in Turkey, Syria and Kurdistan

Elements of Anarchist Theory and Strategy

19 de Julio: Cuando el pueblo se levanta, escribe la historia

International anarchist solidarity against Turkish state repression

Declaración Anarquista Internacional por el Primero de Mayo, 2022

Le vieux monde opprime les femmes et les minorités de genre. Leur force le détruira !

Against Militarism and War: For self-organised struggle and social revolution

Declaração anarquista internacional sobre a pandemia da Covid-19

La révolution du Rojava a défendu le monde, maintenant le monde doit défendre la révolution du Rojava!

Anarchist Theory and History in Global Perspective

Trans Rights is a Class Issue

Capitalism, Anti-Capitalism and Popular Organisation [Booklet]

AUKUS: A big step toward war

Reflexiones sobre la situación de Afganistán

Αυτοοργάνωση ή Χάος

South Africa: Historic rupture or warring brothers again?

Declaración Anarquista Internacional: A 85 Años De La Revolución Española. Sus Enseñanzas Y Su Legado.

Death or Renewal: Is the Climate Crisis the Final Crisis?

Gleichheit und Freiheit stehen nicht zur Debatte!

Contre la guerre au Kurdistan irakien, contre la traîtrise du PDK

Meurtre de Clément Méric : l’enjeu politique du procès en appel

Comunicado sobre el Paro Nacional y las Jornadas de Protesta en Colombia

© 2005-2023 Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by [ Disclaimer | Privacy ]