[ / / / / / / / / ] [ b / news+ / boards ] [ operate / meta ] [ ]

/anarcho/ - Anarchism Board

Anti-Capitalist & Anti-State

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types: jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Revolt. Agitate. Organize. Educate. Board Guidelines

File: 1426822159204.png (101.73 KB, 1785x1739, 1785:1739, Anarcho-swastika.png)

7554c4 No.8212

the pseudo-'nationalism' of the 'nation-State' - which anarchists unequivocally oppose…must be distinguished from the nationalism of the people (Volk) which in its more consistent expressions is a legitimate rejection of both foreign domination and internal authoritarianism, i.e. the State.

- The Black Ram Group

b7a55c No.8213

File: 1426822444317.png (41.29 KB, 625x626, 625:626, baitisbestbait.png)

Nationalist anarchists are not anarchists.

7554c4 No.8214

>>8213
I guess Proudhon wasn't anarchist

http://libcom.org/library/anarchist-integralism-art-politics-apres-garde

My only faith, love and hope lie in Liberty and my Country. That is why I am systematically opposed to anything that is hostile to Liberty or foreign to this sacred land of Gaul. I want to see my country return to its original nature, liberated once and for all from foreign beliefs and alien institutions. Our race for too long has been subject to the influence of Greeks, Romans, Barbarians, Jews and Englishmen. They have left us their religion, their laws, their feudal system and their government… Those of you who accuse me of not being a republican do not truly belong to your land. You have not heard from childhood, as I have, the oak trees of our druidic forests weep for their ancient country. You do not feel your bones, molded with the pure limestone of the Jura, thrill at the memory of our Celtic heroes; Vercingetroix, dragged in the dust of Caesar's triumph, Orgetorix, Ariovistus, and old Galgacus who was vanquished by Agricola. You have not seen liberty appear to you at the brink of our Alpine torrents in the guise of Velleda the Gaul… You are not children of Brennus. You understand nothing about restoring our nationality. This goes far beyond economic reform and the transformation of a debased society, and appears as the highest aim of the February Revolution. You are on the side of the foreigner. This is why you find liberty, which for our ancestors was the source of all things, so odious.

b7a55c No.8216

>>8214
Proudhon having nationalistic ideals doesn't mean nationalist anarchism is anarchistic.

You can go and cherry pick as many nationalistic quote's from all the old anarchist thinkers, I'm sure you can find a few, still don't not mean jack.

7554c4 No.8219

>>8216
I don't see why not. Proudhon's views informed the mutualist branch of anarchist thought. While I'm not arguing that means mutualists are obligated to take a nationalist stance, we can see above that Proudhon's subscription to both anarchism and nationalism were not mere disconnected parcels resting on the same shelf, but things which he believed grew out from each other.

Sure, there have been a good number of anarchist writings denouncing nationalism. But those writings do not dictate who belongs to the anarchist tradition or not.

abce1b No.8220

>>8214

An unsourced letter in an article by a consistent fascist entryist posing as an anarchist.

Yeah, totally convincing.

0bc86f No.8221

File: 1426904000210.png (32.24 KB, 500x500, 1:1, YouDontSayBlackSS.png)

>>8213

>>any attempt whatsoever to initiate conversation about any conceivable topic



>x is not anarchist


So like

>>you like rocks?


>rocks aren't anarchist faggot


Or

>>wanna be my friend and come over for dinner


>food isn't anarchist you stupid faggot


Or

>>anarchism is really anarchist!


>anarchy isn't anarchist faggot


Stop faggoting up the whole world faggot

247da5 No.8222

File: 1426909022196.jpg (12.15 KB, 210x196, 15:14, santil.jpg)

>>8221
>X (literally fucking anything) is anarchist
>Rocks are anarchist
>Food is anarchist

How do you even get up in the morning?

7554c4 No.8223

File: 1426911003722.jpg (946.69 KB, 1926x1431, 214:159, Proudhon-children.jpg)

>>8220
>unsourced

It was cited. You would see this if you scrolled down the page. Being obstinant is not the same thing as being critical.

And hey; who can go wrong with the Anarchist Library, right? Guess what, same passage from Proudhon is used. And it is cited.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/erik-buelinckx-proudhon-s-influence-in-belgium-nationalism-and-culture.lt.pdf

pages 19-20

>a consistent fascist entryist posing as an anarchist.


Are you suggesting that the Proudhon letter is forged or mistranslated? Do you have anything to offer that would cast doubt on the document's authenticity/accuracy?

a24ed7 No.8224

>>8222

>ass hole literally crying literal tears because nothing is anarchist enough


You realise your the exact cancer that already killed this board right?

You can't prescreen commentors here and everyone is pretty aware that your a fucking fascist so your butthurt is pretty much just cutting your own throat

Go back to fucking reddit

106f07 No.8226

>>8212
If the "anarcho-nationalists" want to make the distinction between "nation" as in "nation-state" and "nation" as in "the people/community etc" then why do they call themselves nationalists in the first place, use nationalists symbols, and then spend time and effort explaining that "nation" mean something else? Why not "local anarchists" for example? So either they want to achieve special snowflake status or they are far-right entryists.

b7a55c No.8231

File: 1426954111663.gif (433.78 KB, 500x299, 500:299, Is_d88db9_5312488.gif)

>>8224
>Butt hurt over bullshit logic being refuted
>"I know, ill tell them to kill themselves and call'em a fascist, that ll get people to understand my bullshit!"

8f10e9 No.8234

File: 1426957199029.png (71.71 KB, 1300x864, 325:216, N-A_Flag.png)

National Anarchism is logical conclusion after reading Bakunin

Russian nationalism, anti-semitism, muh slavic union

a81834 No.8235

>>8234
>National Anarchism
Learn your Latin roots you dumb nigger, realize why you're a retard, and kill yourself.

Incidentally:
>anarcho
>sfw board

178f0b No.8236

>>8234
>this faggot
Maybe you need to know what Panslavism is, how it is related to liberation from imperialism, what national liberation is, and even the fact that Bakunin later rejected panslavism as an ineffective strategy in the fight for a classless, stateless society.
Also Bakunin wasn't antisemitic, he was an antitheist. So fuck your muh traditional western christian values too.

8f10e9 No.8237

File: 1426968547125.jpg (73.86 KB, 640x480, 4:3, Antifawerk.jpg)

>>8236
"Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews, such as Jews are every where: commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades, with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement, and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press — they have taken possession of all the newspapers — and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of blooksuckers, a single gluttonnous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders but across all differences of political opinion — this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for Rothschild.

This may seem strange. What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralization in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which. speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail ….”
>This totally isn't anti-semitic, guise…

>National liberation

So nationalism is OK when it's separatism, amirite? Let's support those poor Palestinian and Catalan nationalists, but lets alone not speak about imperialist Israeli and Spanish nationalism!

178f0b No.8238

>>8237

>le merchant faic


"Christianity is precisely the religion par excellence, because it exhibits and manifests, to the fullest extent, the very nature and essence of every religious system, which is the impoverishment, enslavement, and annihilation of humanity for the benefit of divinity."

"To show how theoretical idealism incessantly and inevitably changes into practical materialism, one needs only to cite the example of all the Christian Churches, and, naturally, first of all, that of the Apostolic and Roman Church. What is there more sublime, in the ideal sense, more disinterested, more separate from all the interests of this earth, than the doctrine of Christ preached by that Church? And what is there more brutally materialistic than the constant practice of that same Church since the eighth century, from which dates her definitive establishment as a power? What has been and still is the principal object of all her contests with the sovereigns of Europe? Her temporal goods, her revenues first, and then her temporal power, her political privileges. We must do her the justice to acknowledge that she was the first to discover, in modern history, this incontestable but scarcely Christian truth that wealth and power, the economic exploitation and the political oppression of the masses, are the two inseparable terms of the reign of divine ideality on earth: wealth consolidating and augmenting power, power ever discovering and creating new sources of wealth, and both assuring, better than the martyrdom and faith of the apostles, better than divine grace, the success of the Christian propagandism. This is a historical truth, and the Protestant Churches do not fail to recognise it either. I speak, of course, of the independent churches of England, America, and Switzerland, not of the subjected churches of Germany. The latter have no initiative of their own; they do what their masters, their temporal sovereigns, who are at the same time their spiritual chieftains, order them to do, It is well known that the Protestant propagandism, especially in England and America, is very intimately connected with the propagandism of the material, commercial interests of those two great nations; and it is known also that the objects of the latter propagandism is not at all the enrichment and material prosperity of the countries into which it penetrates in company with the Word of God, but rather the exploitation of those countries with a view to the enrichment and material prosperity of certain classes, which in their own country are very covetous and very pious at the same time.

In a word, it is not at all difficult to prove, history in hand, that the Church, that all the Churches, Christian and non-Christian, by the side of their spiritualistic propagandism, and probably to accelerate and consolidate the success thereof, have never neglected to organise themselves into great corporations for the economic exploitation of the masses under the protection and with the direct and special blessing of some divinity or other; that all the States, which originally, as we know, with all their political and judicial institutions and their dominant and privileged classes have been only temporal branches of these various Churches have likewise had principally in view this same exploitation for the benefit of lay minorities indirectly sanctioned by the Church; finally and in general, that the action of the good God and of all the divine idealities on earth has ended at last, always and everywhere, in founding the prosperous materialism of the few over the fanatical and constantly famishing idealism of the masses."

>b-b-b-but muh traditional western christian values


>separatism

Sure, in the sense that extracting a parasite from your colon constitutes a "separation".

7554c4 No.8240

File: 1426976541610-0.jpg (31.77 KB, 660x597, 220:199, Anarchist_star_by_13VAK.jpg)

File: 1426976541610-1.jpg (316.24 KB, 1560x1458, 260:243, Anarchist-Communist_Symbol.jpg)

>>8226
>then why do they call themselves nationalists in the first place
>and then spend time and effort explaining that "nation" mean something else?

Well really, they are reclaiming the original meaning of "nation". You yourself even used the word "nation-state"; the hyphenation itself shows that "nation" and "state" were not understood as identical things upon initial coinage (otherwise the word is redundant), and that a nation-state is simply a state which claims power in the name of a nation's members and welfare much the same way that a socialist state or "people's republic" claims power in the name of classlessness or working people. Doesn't mean we should recognize the claims of these states, nor consent to their contamination of the common understanding.

How much baggage does the term "communist" carry? How many times have users of this board had to explain to people, online or IRL, that calling yourself a communist doesn't necessitate that you are an admirer of Stalin? Or if the terms "anarcho-communist" or "libertarian communist/libertarian socialist" are used, how often do lay people go:

>''LOL retard, you can't be a libertarian/anarchist AND a communist/socialist. Communists/socialists support all-powerful governments; that's THE POINT!"


Why do such anarchists call themselves something like, I dunno know, "common anarchists" or "landless anarchists"? Obviously because they believe that "communist/socialist" is a valid and perhaps irreplaceable descriptor.

>use nationalists symbols,


Pics related. Anarchists use red stars (or more commonly red-black stars, an obvious spin-off) and hammers & sickles despite that these symbols were invented by the USSR. Even though the red flag predated state socialism by decades, I would make the case, but I understand if you disagree, that it too has become immediately linked with state socialism in the eyes of the uninitiated.

8c813e No.8288

Granting you the difference between pseudo-nationalism and nationalism of the people, I still see 'nationalism,' and therefore hierarchy, present in both ideologies. Proudhon is quoted in post 8214 as saying:
>Those of you who accuse me of not being a republican do not truly belong to your land.
To which my response is simple: I do not belong to my land. To insist I do is inviting it to rule over me, which is not anarchistic. Nor do I belong to the dead. My ancestors, colonials and immigrants, are dead men, and I owe them no favors in death. My only allegiance is to me, and by extension, those who are a positive and uplifting influence on me. I make my own nationality of the people as I live, where I live, and with who I live with.

Please take your third positionist bullshit and leave.

7554c4 No.8292

File: 1427257847101-0.jpg (83.16 KB, 389x550, 389:550, 1313074-Pierre_Joseph_Prou….jpg)

File: 1427257847101-1.jpg (12.51 KB, 180x255, 12:17, Charles_Malato.jpg)

>>8288
Firstly:

>Please take your third positionist bullshit and leave.


As has been demonstrated with Proudhon, as well as with Charles Malato (himself a libertarian communist), the idea of voluntarily occurring and horizontally sustained cultural & ethnic community arose a few times during the early days of anarchist thought. Yes, cosmopolitan stances have certainly become dominant in anarchist discourse since, but that should not be an obstacle to those drawing inspiration from the earlier thought of the tradition's pioneers. If your brand of anarchy doesn't allow for this kind of community development, that's fine, but don't go calling your opponents disingenuous.

>My only allegiance is to me, and by extension, those who are a positive and uplifting influence on me. I make my own nationality of the people as I live, where I live, and with who I live with.


True. Going along with that, those who feel a kinship solidarity with others (a positive and uplifting influence) will seek to associate/confederate/federate with those said others. I interpret that excerpt from Proudhon not as a metaphysical argument about man being perverse for not "belonging to his land", but that Proudhon held identitarian fraternity to be a concomitant of the libertarian order which he and other comrades envisioned themselves living in.

As stated above, if that matters not to you, then alright. For those that find said fraternity imperative, it is appropriately anarchistic for them to seek it out.

10d726 No.8293

tl;dr: How could you possibly have a nationalist anarchist land. Either you'd have to kick all the non-members of the ethnic groups out and enforce borders, amounting to a state, or any non-members of the ethnic group living among the dominant ethnic group would be relegated to a second, lower class, which isn't communist.

8c8bcf No.8297

>>8288
>>8226
>>8293

if you look at the example of history. the celts are a pretty good example of a sort of stateless nationalism.

because there were many many "tribes" of celts. britons, gauls, gaels, celtiberians, etc. etc. but al together they spread out over most of western europe. pretty much all of france and germany and even northern italy. even so far as to invade and sack rome.

they maintained trade relations and various kinds of commerce and among themselves. but each group created and maintained it's own language and culture and whatnot. but there was no state. no pan-celtic nation. the celts did not constitute and empire even though they controlled the very territories which the roman empire later conquered.

b ut they were all celts. as differentr and independant as they were individually and regionally etc. they still recognized each other as celts. which was to their benefit since it allowed them to form very large armies composed of warriors from a variety of different tribes. with which for example. to battle roman armies which were constituted of romans and whatever slaves they could get together.

the rest of the time they minded their own business. they lived in their villages and tended their crops and flocks and things.

the point of all this is that. nationalism is a functon of identity. it is a part of the collective unconscious. i speak this language and live in this place and am surrounded by these people who are like me and i identify myself with those people. it's a natural outcropping of they way that humans are put together. if we are to work in groups at all then there must be a way to incorporate others into one's own personal identity. the result of this is both. cooperation/mutual aid and nationalism.

even if the entire world were to abolish all it's various states. then we would still be left with an incomprehensible number of nations.

not that i'm particularly fond of nationalist anarchism having run into some straight up bonified nazi's among them.

but i do think that they make some actual points about nationalism.

8c813e No.8303

>>8297
>>8292

After reading this explanation, I argue that 'national anarchism' would be the natural result of any anarchist system over a long enough timeline. If a stateless system managed to hold over a vast enough tract of land, even while ignoring previously established national identities, the world would see the development of entirely new 'nations.' As with the celts and the aboriginal tribes. However, I am not convinced that Nationalist Anarchism is a necessary political identity, especially if one is looking to base their nationality on a previously established tribe (racial separatism,) or has intentions to alienate members of outsider tribes. I apologize if I am making assumptions, however, with the usual atmosphere of 8chan it's hard to ignore the identity politics.

7554c4 No.8308

>>8303
I admit that in responding to this, I'm not certain what it is you mean by "necessary political identity". I'm not sure if by that you were talking about its desirability, or whether it has enough "content" to be given denotation as a distinct anarchism.

I'm leaning towards the latter interpretation. In which case I would say it is true that a nationalist anarchism has no necessary prescriptions as to whether you are going to have, say, a syndicalist or mutualist or communist arrangement. At the same time, neither does, say, insurrectionary anarchism, which is simply a stance regarding how anarchism may be achieved.

In a similar vein, "libertarian nationalism" addresses the non-economic matters of anarchism. It is a rebuttal to the cosmopolitan arguments that reign in the contemporary discourse, to the effect that (as we see with some of the posters in this thread) a person who subscribes to the abolition of state and capital is rejected as insufficiently anarchist if they are not also of a cosmopolitan mind.

So if your question was "Is it meaningful for a person to call him/herself a national anarchist?", I would respond with "Is it meaningful for a person to call him/herself an insurrectionary anarchist?", or even better: "Would a national anarchist run into so much consternation from others that he/she needs to develop their own school of thought to justify him/herself in public?"

8c813e No.8312

>>8308
My qualms with it do not stem from the quantity of content, and I certainly do not have any problem with the idea of a newly birthed 'nation of the people' or tribe which grows from a post-revolutionary anarchist society. However, if the Nationalism is initiated at the beginning of the revolution, and/or is based on the nations of the past, it creates an atmosphere for the undesirable effects of identity politics (xenophobia) to disseminate. As I stated earlier, my comrades are whom I work with towards anarchy, no more and no less. Picking and choosing them based on race or ancestral origin is inviting the past to rule over me, and that makes me more than a bit uncomfortable. However, if we were to eventually become a group tightly organized enough to be recognized as an independent 'nation' of peoples within an anarchist society, I would not combat that definition. So long as it did not become an excuse to treat us as 'the others.' (Are nomadic societies out of the question within National-Anarchism? I would hope that traveling tribes would be welcomed as long as they treated the land and peoples they were visiting with due respect!)

Besides that, opening this thread with a circle-A enveloped in a swastika is begging for misunderstanding and trouble.

7554c4 No.8320

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>8312
I see, and I respect your trepidation regarding the timing of the ethnogenesis.

In response to this, I'm going to digress for a short bit. I'm reminded of the 1971 Chomsky-Foucault debate which I've embedded here. They were exploring the matter of whether there is a human nature, and their greatest point of contention was what ideals of justice would/would not exist in a classless society. As you can see from 10:11 until the end (12:58), Foucault rejects that ideas of justice which exist in our classed society can be used to imagine the type of norms which would formulate upon class abolition. Chomsky, instead, contends that contemporary justice, both in its idealization as well as institutionalization, can be said to reflect a fundamental human striving while state and capital corrupt the expression of this striving.

Bringing this back to your post, it is true that existing identity traits, and the drive to culturally manifest them, have resulted in today's nasty identity politics. We may need, though, to pose a question which partially resembles Chomsky and Foucault from 44 years ago: are today's unfortunate identity politics the necessary realization of today's existing or pupating nations? Or are identity politics a contingent corruption of these various nationalisms as they have attempted to develop themselves while abiding by the limitations of a statist and capitalist environment?

As you may guess, I myself subscribe to the latter take. I suppose it really comes down to whether you believe that anarchism would be:

1) a millenarian development; a scenario which rises far beyond the limited understandings we have in a classed society, and which would change every aspect of the way we live (but have faith, it'll certainly be better than what we have now!)

2) a conducive setting; a scenario in which the same drives we have in a classed society are better able to achieve their aims. Perhaps a handleful of small and large ideas which elaborate on fundamental drives would be dropped or altered, but effectively anarchism would exist to the benefit of the people we are now

>Besides that, opening this thread with a circle-A enveloped in a swastika is begging for misunderstanding and trouble.


Hey, it's like yinz say: gotta agitate before you educate, haha! Amirite?



Delete Post [ ]
[]
[Return][Go to top][Catalog]
[ / / / / / / / / ] [ b / news+ / boards ] [ operate / meta ] [ ]