Militarism of Some Anarchists and Its Disparagies
We bring our thoughts on reformist and militarist tendencies in the Czech anarchist movement from the pen of the membership of the Ostrava Anarchist Federation, with which we agree.
After the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, some anarchists (as well as related left-wingers) have emerged with strange pre-war tendencies. Their defense is that they try to adapt anarchist ideas to the current political context, anarchism based on the original social-anarchist tradition. On the other hand, they accused sectarianism and dogmatism. If we take a closer look at these attitudes (most often promoted by AF) we will find that they contain eye-catching contradictions and are unsustainable for the long term because of ideological inconsistency.
The first of the contradictions is the alleged effort to "listen to the voices of the locals". But this would mean that the vast majority of Ukrainian men are willing to run to the trenches for the sake of the state. However, the reality is different. Millions of Ukrainians are avoiding the mobilization, only 650 000 of them fled abroad. (In Ukraine itself, he dropped a gun and ran away from his troops to 200 000 deserteders - note. TIME). Shouldn't pre-war anarchists listen especially to these voices? And if the goal of these anarchists is to defeat Putin's Empire by methods of conventional warfare, should the deserters not be forced to join the army by force, according to this logic? If so, how to do it? Appear deserters of the organs of state power? If participation in the army should be voluntary, then how can we add enough men to the frontline? Should AF join the government recruitment campaign from the comfort of a keyboard?
The questions we ask are, of course, rhetoric and much exaggerated; however, show that occupying reform posts carries with it unsolvable contradictions. Within the "effectiveness" of the fight against Putin's invasion, then logically, resignations of the social revolution must be followed (this would record Putin), silence about the crimes of the Ukrainian state (this would also record Putin) or a "temporary" stopping of criticism of the hierarchy of power or the exploitation of the working class. After all, any disunity of the "democratic" camp strengthens the enemy's position. Reformist anarchism then knowingly or unknowingly is getting into a false dichotomy "either you are with NATO or with Putin". As if there are no other ways to stop the war machinery.
By doing so we get to the second opposition, which is the way to fight war. Some anarchists believe that when they send money to build war infrastructure, they will help the Ukrainian army to victory, Russia capitulates and the war ends. This attitude makes no sense for several reasons. For example, the AF campaign, whose goal was to deliver an all-terrain vehicle to Ukraine, was spinning the war spiral rather than spilling sand into the war arena. In the solidarity collection they managed to collect 140 000 crowns, which is (in the Czech environment, where anarchism has a problem collecting a few hundred for membership contributions of its own organizations) somewhat suspicious. With the fact that normal operations nowadays have trouble making payments at the end of the month due to inflation, the question is--who sponsored the campaign so generously. However, let's imagine a hypothetical situation - the movement will finance a car, which will transport a few soldiers to the frontline and in a few days, an off-roader will end up shot in a ditch. What's next? Another collection? When we realize that the war industry swallows up several millions of crowns per day on both sides of the conflict, does such make sense at all considering the financial possibilities of the anarchist movement? Couldn't one hundred thousand be used effectively? What should be sent to the Russian association, which due to this financial lever burned down dozens of recruitment centers or derailed hundreds of trains with military material? Or support deserters on both sides of the conflict and show how pointless it is to point a gun at people we've never seen in our lives who have done nothing to us just because someone put us in uniform and told us to? And what about financially supporting anti-government hackers, who will attack Russian or Ukrainian military servers? When asked about which method of anti-war activities is more effective and meaningful, let everyone answer it themselves.
Imagine that a similar reformist proud anarchist movement had existed in 2003. These people would undoubtedly send the US army to Iraq by terrain cars, because Saddam Hussein is a dictator and suppresses human rights, and he invaded sovereign countries. George Bush would certainly be considered a controversial, but at least pro-Western and democratically elected politician. Sound a lot crazy to you ? So how is it possible that we are in an analog situation today?
"I always thought that people supported war until I found out that some don't have to." “
- IN Remark, paraphrased
Ostrava Anarchist Federation, November 2024
link: https://oafed.noblogs.org/post/2024/11/03/militarismus-nekterych-anarchi...