Talk:Anarchism and nationalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sociology  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Merge Proposal[edit]

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

Alternative Socialism and Black Ram[edit]

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 ibe d 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)

I know that this might not belong here, but is it possible for you to upload the various editions of Black Ram to scribd.com or some other online public document repository? 138.238.28.83 (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the term 'anarcho-nationalism'[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

First I'd like to say that the comment you referred to in (5) wasn't aiming at you, or anyone else who may have contributed to this page. I was talking about some of the source material I would inevitably come across in researching this material.
Also, my criticisms of the writing style might have been a bit overstated. I apologize for citing such vague criticism without any real constructive points. I imagine the biggest problem is that it's a somewhat contentious subject with very little information to be found. The intro paragraphs seem fine to me, but the rest of the article seems very piecemeal. I was also confused by the references to antisemitism throughout the article. If this is to reinforce the nationalistic impulses of these anarchists, then it does so in a way that emphasizes racist nationalism, if not statism. At this point, it looks like the were just racist authoritarians influenced by racist anarchists. As for being intentionally misleading, I could be wrong about the intentions of the editor, but I definitely believe it to be misleading. Proudhon is mentioned only as antisemitic and implicitly pseudo-fascist. The reference to Har Dayal's advocacy to return to the principles of an Aryan society would seem slightly more contextual considering the fact that he was Indian, and it really had nothing in common with the the Nazi concept of an Aryan supremacy. I don't really know enough about the content in the third and fourth sections, but from a cursory inspection it appears that a lot of information is trying to be stuffed into a small amount of space in the third (and I really can't offer any suggestions as to how to fix that). As for the fourth, I'm not sure exactly how notable this Black Ram group is.
At this point I have to admit a dearth of information about fascism and world history, so I'll probably end up tripping all over myself, but I'm going to try to respond to your other points. It seems to me that fascists possess an extraordinary ability to adopt the ideas of other thinkers, and not only make it seems their own, but also make it seem like it is compatible with fascism. In drawing the connection between anarchism (especially modern anarchism) and fascism, it would probably be more useful to provide evidence of anarchists drawing from the ideas of fascism. Of course, you could suggest that since fascism is a slightly younger concept than anarchism, and anarchist thinkers did not have much time to draw from its influence. Of course, once fascism became a well-established political doctrine, few groups of people could claim to have the same level of hatred of and mobilization to prevent this atrocity as the anarchists. I honestly believe that's a stronger indicator of the relationship between fascism and anarchism than the fact that Mussolini dabbled in syndicalism as a young man. In describing Proudhon and Bakunin as "men of their times" I was not trying to commit chronological snobbery, I was simply trying to downplay the connection between Nazism and anarchism. If two anarchists hate Jewish people in a time and place where everyone hates Jewish people, it does not follow that they should be associated with a group of people who massacred millions of Jews. On a related note, I do find it hilarious that at every point in history, people drop their critical faculties and assume that they have reached the end times, and have perfect knowledge of the world compared to those ignorant savages from the past. If Bakunin and Proudhon were resurrected today, and denounced my beliefs as incorrect, I'd probably remark that I'm not a Bakuninist, I'm an anarchist. I'd probably also commend them for not trying to eat my brains.
As for combating ethnocide, I would draw a huge distinction between fighting against an imperialistic, land-hungry invader and sealing off land and its accompanying resources for your sole use. Presumably, an "invading" anarchist group of people wouldn't be concerned with stealing your land and using chemical warfare on your people. I begrudgingly accept the nationalistic impulses of oppressed people around the world as a tool for aiding their struggle, but I don't think that translates perfectly into a post-imperialistic world. Also, the examples you have provided appear to be more in the category of genocide than ethnocide.
Since the beauty and curse of anarchism lies its spectacular vagueness, I'm going to try to use a very basic definition. Anarchism is the absence of a state. An acceptable definition of the state is a group with a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a particular geographic area. This definition was proposed by the relatively uncontroversial sociologist Max Weber (I'm not a big fan of his, incidentally). Nationalist Anarchism, insofar accepts the fact of borders as a means of regulating passage, and the legitimacy of using physical force to enforce this regulation, is not anarchist. Of course, if Nationalistic Anarchism supports voluntary separation (although this seems kind of odd to me) it could probably be considered anarchist. Or, as you suggested, nationalism could be described as a diaspora without a territory, it could be considered anarchist. Of course, at this level of vagueness, it would simply seem to be calling for people being allowed to have a shared identity, which is perfectly acceptable to all anarchists (not to mention all sane individuals), and might even call into question the concept of National Anarchism as a separate concept altogether. If you have a different definition of the state I'd like to hear it. In fact, this one doesn't sit completely right with me, although I imagine that any acceptable definition of the state would contain Weber's, or a modified version thereof, within it.
Sorry I didn't get into your paragraph about the Black Ram, I'm just feeling all typed out. As a short response, I'll just say that I agree with you wholeheartedly for the most part, and my criticism was more about the superficial appearance of the Black Ram, and in particular its nationalistic impulses. I also take serious issue with your classification of anarchists as failed Marxists (which, by the way, is the only comment in your response that came close to an insult). Especially looking at the youngest generation of anarchists, this can be seen as patently false. In fact, I've seen more evidence of the opposite to be true. Hisownspace 19:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I've found an article which apparently tries to paint PJ Proudhon as the father of Fascism. It's on some webpage that requires a membership, so I've only managed to read the first page, but it seems pretty interesting, and probably right up your alley. It's called Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Harbinger of Fascism Hisownspace 19:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If Nationalist Anarchism Does Exist, This Article Does Not Describe It[edit]

After my first experience with this page and subsequent comments on the talk page, I have done some pretty intensive research into the subject of this article. While my knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines for deletion is pretty weak, I feel like this page is a perfect candidate. I'll leave it up to others to make the official nomination for deletion if they agree with my criticisms.

First of all, the second paragraph claims that many, but not all of nationalist anarchists support ethnic separatism, but fails to indicate what the non-separatist do advocate. This should be fixable if there is someone who is reasonably knowledgeable about the subject makes a minor edit. However, based on my claims in the remainder of this criticism, I'm reasonably sure no such expert exists.

(as a minor point, anarchism opposition to nationalism goes far beyond simplistically equating nations with states, as is claimed in the third paragraph)

There is not one statement in the section on National Anarchisms origins that is not at the very least intensely misleading. The claim that Mazzini aligned in equal measure with liberalism, socialism and nationalism is completely false. Later in his life, he did briefly associate with the likes of Marx and Bakunin, but the relationship ended because of his incompatibility with socialism. I don't have access to the reference cited, but if it verifies this claim, it would be at the very least a very controversial assessment of Mazzini's beliefs.

The sentence "Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was anti-semitic and influenced the proto-fascist Cercle Proudhon set up in 1911" is pretty awkward, mostly because of the non sequitur about Proudhon's antisemitism. Furthermore, the claim that Proudhon influenced the Cercle Proudhon is certainly true, but not in a way that supports the theme of this article. In much the way the Nazis misleadingly used Nietzsche's philosophy to further their own ends, so too did the Cercle Proudhon. For example, (as stated in the Wikipedia article on the Cercle Proudhon) they used Proudhon's refutation of Rousseau's social contract but to an ends which he could hardly have agreed with.

While Bakunin did propose the creation of a United States of Europe, this does not necessarily support the claim of nationalistic leanings within anarchism. An actual explanation of this is beyond the scope of this criticism.

W.G.H. Smart hardly seems noteworthy. What is meant by him being a nationalist is vague, as many movements seeking to attain independence from foreign domination may be labeled nationalist. More importantly, Google only shows 19 hits for Smart, and most of the links contain a perfect facsimile of the sentence in this article and a similar one from the article on Anarchism in Ireland.

I've already voiced my criticisms of the discussion of Har Dayal in s previous post on this talk page.

I'd like to see evidence of a significant nationalist side in Proudhon's character, much less his works. While it is true that Bakunin held certain nationalist beliefs, it is not a given that he held them as a significant tenant of his anarchist beliefs. As I read on some other talk page, we are to presume that this was more of a character flaw than a well-integrated aspect of his anarchism.

The völkisch section claims to introduce a concept of Nationalist Anarchism independent of the far right, but it immediately delves into a description of what is apparently a proto-Nazi movement. As for the narodniks, I see no evidence of a strong connection between them and anarchism. In fact, the only real connection is that both share a rejection of certain tenants of orthodox Marxist theory, in particular the doctrine of historical materialism (which, by the way, not all anarchists wholly reject).

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no connection between the Völkisch Movement and anarchism. However, there appears to be a pretty strong connection with Nazism, which again seems a bit odd in a section purporting to be illuminating the (apparently rare) non-fascist undercurrents of Nationalist Anarchism.

I have not managed to find any information on the alternative socialist movement (there are only 8 hits on Google and there is no source referenced in the article, but I'm sure even if there were, it would be from some obscure zine or obsolete textbook) aside from the fact that it was indeed founded by Monica Sjöö. Assuming there is a connection between this movement, the Völkisch Movement, and anarchism a proper reference should follow.

I'm not going to discuss the section on the Black Ram since the editor who included it admitted that it is very possible that she/he is in possession of the only remaining copies of its publication. Consequently, my only criticisms of this section are personal, and therefor irrelevant.

Finally, the See Also section is laughable. It contains a link to an article on a fascist who had anarchist beliefs as a young man and some fascist group. Both links have nothing to with Nationalist Anarchism or anarchism (aside from the fact that both National syndicalism and a subset of anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, share a common word in their names). Were I slightly more cynical, and understood why one would want to do this, I would argue that this article is an example of somebody consciously attempting to create a non-existent link between fascism and anarchism.

I'm going to wait a few days to see if anybody responds to this, and then hopefully do some research on nominations for deletion and then nominate it myself. Hisownspace 23:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this up. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Jacob Haller 00:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was about to reply to your previous post (which seemed pretty constructive) and then get down to improving the article, which I assumed we were both eager to do, so what am I to make of this outburst?
(1) On separatism: Black Ram promoted what it called anarcho-nationalism/national anarchism but also spoke of 'cosmopolitan' anarchism as equally valid. It wasn't setting one against the other, or at least, it allowed that debate was possible. Nothing in the paper spoke of ethnic separatism. Neither did it state it was opposed to ethnic separatism, which was widely supported by left-wing radicals at the time. Objectively, all I can produce are more quotes from Black Ram that are positive about black people. But it would be improper to say that all anarcho-nationalists supported separatism when the evidence for Black Ram just isn't clear one way or the other. As for Alternative Socialism: its main founder, ideologist and spokesman wanted a local 'patriotism' but the movement also supported minority communities in struggle against the state: this is abundantly clear from its literature.
(2) Black Ram sold through punk and New Age/Pagan networks and at least two major anarchist bookshops. I've no idea how influential it was, but as possibly the earliest use of the term 'anarcho-nationalist' I would think the paper is of some significance. (Not that I am claiming it is the earliest use — that's for others to judge. I'm giving the bare facts.) Anyway, they're out there. An editor can't be held accountable for others' failure to come forward. Proof that the paper existed is that it was advertised in Pipes of PAN, a pretty mainstream British neo-pagan journal — I've dealt with this on Talk:National anarchism. "Obscure zines" — isn't that what anybody writing about anarchism from primary sources has to deal with? It doesn't mean they're unreliable if they're simply being used as evidence of movement positions, i.e. as no more than what they claim. Movement publications are allowable on Wikipedia as long as no inferences are drawn from them that go beyond what is in the texts.
(3) Mazzini — well, don't judge it if you haven't read it. Mazzini's socialism was of a utopian, religious variety derived from Saint-Simon, and he broke from the First International primarily in protest at Marx's materialism, not in rejection of socialism. The Italian national struggle also diverted him from socialist involvement, but as a Triumvir in the Roman Republic of 1849, he had a very creditable record of liberal and social reform. Nobody is claiming Mazzini was an anarchist, but his liberal nationalism stands in clear contrast to the authoritarian nationalism of a Hegel or a Treitzschke.
(4) To say the Cercle Proudhon misused Proudhon is a point of view; correct or not, the objective fact of the influence is what matters. Remember, we're tracing trajectories, not sitting in judgment of them.
(5) United States of Europe: 19th-century nationalists widely advocated breaking down empires into nations in order to build them up again into a Europe-wide confederation on a free and equal basis (starting from below and working up to wider and wider federations on a basis of regional affinity, and eventually a global federation). Bakunin's federalism stands entirely within this tradition, as the linked article on 'anarchist ideas of nationalism and patriotism' amply demonstrates.
(6) The passages about Proudhon's and Bakunin's anti-semitism — and, I think, the See Also section as well — were inserted by an editor who appears to be an Asian with an agenda of exposing racism among white radicals. (But then, don't we all have some sort of agenda?) I fitted my text around his, but I think he's better placed to defend it than I am. What I will say is that "Proudhon's character flaw" would be POV — we're not here to judge his anti-semitism either as a character flaw or as a valid insight. (You don't do chronological snobbery, remember.) Smart? — well, I didn't add that one either but I don't think anybody is claiming the guy is that significant. We're talking about one sentence here. I agree with you about the See Also section, but details like these don't even come close to a reason for deleting the whole article.
(7) Yes, Har Dayal has nothing in common with "the Nazi concept of Aryan supremacy" but, since nobody is claiming that nationalist anarchism is about Aryan supremacy, your criticism would seem to be beside the point. It may be instructive to trace early anarchist-nationalist ideas through into the fascist forms of nationalism, but then they cease to be anarchist and are only useful and relevant as a means of contrasting that trajectory with more authentically anarchist nationalisms. In the case of Har Dayal, he was a reasonably notable character who found expression for his anarchism in nationalism (or vice versa) and certainly has a rightful place in this article.
(8) "The völkisch section claims to introduce a concept of Nationalist Anarchism independent of the far right, but it immediately delves into a description of what is apparently a proto-Nazi movement". Excuse me? What proto-Nazi movement exactly? Are we reading the same article here? If you've checked out Völkisch movement I think you should re-read it. The movement spanned both left and right. To say it was proto-Nazi because the Nazis appealed to 'volkisch' values is no more valid than to say Proudhon was a proto-Nazi because of Cercle Proudhon or the Vichy government's use of him. Can we please be finished with these double standards?
No connection between the volkisch movement and anarchism? That is patently untrue. In your "intensive" research have you checked out Gustav Landauer, or his protégé Erich Mühsam? I don't just mean on Wikipedia either (which is not that informative, alas). Landauer, the German-Jewish revolutionary of the Munich Republic, assassinated by the Freikorps: hardly your archetype of a proto-Nazi. But also a man with ideological roots in the volkisch philosophers and the organic conception of the nation (therefore absolutely not identified with the state).
Sure, there's a connection between the Nazis and the volkisch movement — like there's a connection between Stalin and socialism. My views on this matter are on my user page if you wish to read them.
(9) Almost the only valid criticism in your post is the need for more references, specifically on Alternative Socialism and maybe some points relating to 19th-century nationalism. We're already agreed on that, so I will get down to providing them. But again, the need for more sources is not a reason for deleting an entire article.
Some people always paint even the most liberal or libertarian nationalism as fascism. I suppose that's life. By the way, I'm going to move this section (whatever its title may mean) to its proper sequence at the foot of the page. Gnostrat 09:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
(5) I'm not familiar with nationalist federalism. But anarchist federalism took root on both sides of the Atlantic, and the situstions in the old world and the new were very different. In North America, nationalism was a centralizing movement. In Europe it was a decentralizing movement. In both, anarchism was a decentralizing movement, and the most widespread arguments for federation center around scale (individual sovereignity, collective force, etc.) and alternate economic preferences, rather than ethnic, linguistic or religious affinities.
(6) I suppose these are relevent to articles on Proudhon et al. But note that anarchist traditions usually take their names from certain principles, while, by contrast, Marxist traditions usually take their names from their founders. Anarchists tend to take pride in keeping the good parts and replacing the bad parts in older anarchist theory (and debate which are the good parts and which are the bad parts). So while Proudhon's anti-semitism might influence non-anarchist groups, it doesn't influence anarchist groups. (If any are anti-semetic, it must have some other source). As such, it may be appropriate to this article and certain biographies, but it's not, IMHO, appropriate to the main anarchism article. Jacob Haller 20:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Sorry about the placement; I'm not completely up to date with Wikipedia's talk page conventions. And I guess I could change the title of this section, but it really shouldn't affect the general idea of what I'm trying to say. Aside from that, I'm tempted to simply re-paste most of my previous criticism in italics. However, that would most likely not be constructive. I'm just gonna try to respond a paragraph at a time.
As for the outburst, it actually comes from a more thorough reading of the article, references cited and other material related to this article. While I did get some pretty interesting information about Proudhon's bizarre beliefs, I didn't see anything that even remotely resembled what was claimed in this article.
(1) If the Black Ram promoted an alternative to separatism, that's the sort of thing that should be including in the article, with appropriate sources. The rest of the first section is fine, except for the overly simplistic representation of mainstream anarchists' rejection of nationalism. Of course, it might not be the place of this article to fully flesh out how anarchists view nationalism...
I'm not really sure what that whole "positive about black people" thing is supposed to mean so I can't really address it. And the literature of the alternative socialism movement might be very clear about it's patriotism, but I haven't managed to find any of this literature. Furthermore, given the (at best) tenuous relationship between socialists and anarchists, I feel obligated to question the anarchist nature of this movement.
(2) I mostly agree with you. Regardless of what Wikipedia's actual policy is, it's difficult to find readily available information about some of the more obscure offshoots of anarchism. Obviously Black Ram is and obscure zine, but that was a pretty inflammatory comment on my part, and mostly serve as an inappropriate attack on the information in the article.
(3) I have read it. Mazzini was not a socialist. This is objective fact. Like I said in my last post, I didn't have access to the book that was cited in the article, but if it actually makes that claim, or any like it, it would be contested by a lot of people. Presumably, though, it doesn't really matter in the context of this article, since he wasn't an anarchist. I guess his inclusion was only as an influence on later strands of nationalist anarchism.
(4) You are right. The concept that Proudhon's views were misused by the Cercle Proudhon is a point of view. Wikipedia has no problem with points of view. In fact, that's most of what an encyclopedia does; it communicates points of view. You can't refute the claim that the Cercle Proudhon was not anarchist by effectively claiming that someone believed it wasn't anarchist. Please at least read the claim I was referring, which was apparently relevant enough for the article on the group itself. If that's insufficient, I can supply other sources. Furthermore, points of view aside, the Cercle Proudhon was not anarchistic in any way. It's inclusion in an article supposedly about anarchism is inappropriate.
(5) The article about nationalism and anarchism actually makes some interesting points. I don't think it necessarily justifies Bakunin's call for a United States of Europe as nationalistic in nature, but it does bring up some interesting ideas that actually aren't discussed in the article. Unfortunately, as the only reasonable inclusion in the article, it would
(6) I'm not entirely sure why the race of the vandal is important, and, while I wholeheartedly agree with his agenda, it's not valid to impose it here. I don't do chronological snobbery, but claiming that it is bad to have a vitriolic hatred against a specific group of religious people is hardly that. Antisemitism is not a valid insight. It's bizarre and irrational hatred, regardless of when it is entertained. As for Smart, yes, it is one sentence. But I didn't write a 12 paragraph criticism about one sentence. In the context of contesting a relatively large piece of work, it seems reasonable to refute even the most minor points.
(7) The mention of the Aryan race, especially in an article about nationalism, should at least be qualified as distinct from the Nazi view. The fact that he believed a specific culture expressed the ideals of anarchism isn't nationalistic in any significant sense. Finally, you can't conflate the desire to liberate oneself and people like you from an imperialist power with the idea of nationalism. Of course, a lot of resistance to occupation is nationalist in character, but that's a rather unimportant connection.
(8) I may have overstated the Nazi connection. Maybe I was thrown off by the significant section on Nazism. Of course the article that you encouraged me to re-read does not have a single reference to anarchism. In fact, the only possible connection is that both are somewhat populist. That hardly seems like a valid reason for its inclusion. Either way, it's pretty clear that a the völkisch movement had more in common with Nazism than anarchism.
I'm not saying nationalism is fascist. Much of the article seems to be implying that Nationalist Anarchism is fascist, and any semi-sentient person can tell that anarchism and fascism are pretty much as far apart as two political philosophies can be. One look at the US, Palestine, and dozens of other national entities proves that nationalistic fervor can be distinct from fascism as well.
At this point I've decided not to nominate the article for deletion. Mind you, this is a purely pragmatic consideration, as there's no way this article is going to be deleted. Apparently Mazzini was a socialist, Proudhon was a fascist, Bakunin's idea for United States was nationalistic, WGH Smart is notable, the Volkisch movement had more in common with anarchism than it did with fascism. I can't argue with someone if we're using different facts.
As a final comment, even if 90 percent of my comments here are shown to be completely wrong, the article itself seems to more of a description of anarchists who happen to be nationalists (with a bunch of bizzare references to fascism mized in for some reason) than an attempt to elucidate Nationalist Anarchism. Of course, I'm fairly certain that I'm not wrong.
I'm sorry if this post is a bit difficult to get through. I was really tired (and pretty hungover) when I wrote most of this, and I really don't feel up to a rewrite. Hisownspace 22:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
On a somewhat self-refutative note, I actually did a little bit of research on Proudhon's relationship with fascism and managed to find a summary of Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Harbinger of Fascism at http://www.anarchism.net/forum/forum_entry.php?id=14419, although I have still not managed to get my hands on the actual piece. Furthermore I really don't feel like pouring over What is Property at the moment, much less some of his lesser works which appear to support the fascist theory much better. Interestingly, the impression that I get is that, if the claims are verifiable, Proudhon is simply a proto-fascist who mislabeled himself as an anarchist. If this seems controversial to anarchists, or a cop-out to non-anarchists, I could try further explanation. Hisownspace 22:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty tired as well, but I've made a few preliminary edits which just might begin to address the problems with the article. I don't agree that it is trying to make nationalist anarchism sound like fascism, but if parts of it give that impression, then that needs fixing. The editor who added the anti-semitism material isn't guilty of vandalism, by the way. It was a bona fide edit which I just think could have turned out better than it did. I might get back to you over a few of the points where I think you've misunderstood me, but I don't think we're actually as far apart on this thing as you might think. Probably we both need to go off and meditate, or something. Mazzini's still a socialist, though. :) Gnostrat 23:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I've read some of Proudhon's works. It looks to me like he attempts to synthesize socialism and liberalism, using liberal means (markets) for socialist ends (ending usury, empowering workers, etc.) and vice-versa. His embrace of markets is unusual but hardly unique among (socialist) anarchists. Proudhon was a sexist and probably was a racist.
  • "antipathy to bankers and Jews, compare Nazi appeals to the middle class to abolish "interest slavery;""
Proudhon was hostile to usury, but less hostile than most socialist theorists of his time and later. Proudhon argues that A Loan is a Service (in the letter by the same title) but that it is an artificially scarce service. Proudhon argues that genuine free markets would abolish usury.
Evidence for antipathy to Jews? If we take Marx's On the Jewish Question apart and out of context, it may look anti-semitic. If we take Proudhon's statements apart and out of context, we might get the same misleading results.
  • "antipathy to predatory capital, compare Nazis demanding liquidation of Bank of France."
Proudhon proposed the Bank of the People to out-compete the Bank of France.
  • "Proudhon's hostility to labor and working class movements, unless they merged with middle class [sic] interests, reflects in Nazi hatred of communist worker. movements."
He was involved in working-class movements. He didn't understand strikes, though. In 1851, he calls for:

Collective power, the principle of workmen's associations, in place of armies; Commerce, the concrete form of contract, which takes the place of Law; Equality in exchange; Competition;

  • "Proudhon advocated a dictatorship with a popular basis and a revolutionary social program. This is fascist."
Proudhon repeatedly condemns dictatorship. In fact, he condemns democracy for building dictatorships. In 1851, he states:

The sovereignty of the People has been, is I may say so, for a century past, but a skirmishing line for Liberty. It was either an error, or a clever scheme of our fathers to make the sovereign people in the image of the king-man: as the Revolution becomes better understood, this mythology vanishes, all traces of government disappear and follow the principle of government itself to dissolution.

The short summary looks like a hatchet job, rooted in the Marxist description of anarchism as petty-bourgeois ideology, and fascism as petty-bourgeois ideology, and in certain sectarians' desire to associate mutualism with capitalism and fascism. Jacob Haller 00:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Proudhon, 1851, on the Bank of France and the proposed Bank of the People:

By the same rule, citizens have the right to found, for their common advantage, a Bank, with such capital as they choose, for the purpose of obtaining at a low price the currency that is indispensable in their transactions, and to compete with individual privileged banks. In agreeing among themselves with this object, they will only be making use of the right which is guaranteed to them by the principle of the freedom of commerce, and the articles 1589 and 1703 of the Civil Code, which are the interpretation of it. Thus a Bank of Discount may be a public establishment, and to found it there is needed neither association, nor fraternity, nor obligation, nor State intervention; only a reciprocal promise for sale or exchange is needed; in a word, a simple contract. This settled, I say that not only may a Bank of Discount be a public establishment, but that such a bank is needed. Here is the proof: The Bank of France was founded, with Governmental privilege, by a company of stockholders, with a capital of $18,000,000. The specie at present buried in its vaults amounts to about $120,000,000. Thus five-sixths of this specie which has accumulated in the vaults of the Bank, by the substitution of paper for metal in general circulation, is the property of the citizens. Therefore the Bank, by the nature of its mechanism, which consists in using capital which does not belong to it, ought to be a public institution. Another cause of this accumulation of specie is the gratuitous privilege which the Bank of France has obtained from the State of issuing notes against the specie of which it is the depositary. So, as every privilege is public property, the Bank of France, by its privilege alone, tends to become a public institution. The privilege of issuing bank notes, and of gradually displacing coin by paper in the circulation, has for its immediate result, on the one hand, to give to the stockholders of the Bank an amount of interest far in excess of that due to their capital; on the other, to maintain the price of money at a high rate, to the great profit of the class of bankers and money-lenders, but to the great detriment of producers, manufacturers, merchants, consumers of every kind who make use of currency. This excess of interest paid to stockholders, and the rise in the rates for money, both the result of the desire which Power has always had to make itself agreeable to the rich, capitalistic class, are unjust, they cannot last forever; therefore the Bank, by the illegitimacy of its privileges, is doomed to become a public establishment.

I hope you will pardon my excessive reliance on one work, his General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century, for the quotations, but it clearly addresses all these concerns. Jacob Haller 00:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've sort of been out of touch with the development of this page in the past week or so, but I just checked it out today, and I'm really impressed with the progress. There are still some parts that seem either inaccurate or a bit misleading, but all in all, it's a pretty solid page. I'm also happy about the new anarchism template. I wish I could add some more informative material or change some passages, but whenever I try to research this content, I get distracted by much more interesting (but extremely related) ideas, so I only have a very weak working knowledge of most of this info. Either way, I'm glad everyone chipped in to create a much more acceptable page (and hope my talk page rants were at least of some help). Hisownspace 01:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Page moves[edit]

This page is not a new creation, i simply moved the page on Nationalist anarchism here in order to avoid that articles somewhat misleading title. I'm not so sure of how to do redirects, if someone who has a more solid handle on wiki markup could check to make sure the redirect is working properly I'd appreciate it (sorry). I've also tried to improve the article quite a bit, separating historical fusions from contemporary ones, adding links to anarchism in china and in mexico, incorporating text relevant to the black ram group from the old talk page into the appropriate section, and generally trying to clean the whole thing up as best i can. it still needs a discussion on anarchism in Korea and Vietnam - two places where anarchists were intimately involved in nationalist movements but which i lack the in-depth knowledge required to write on, and a better discussion of the ideological similarities and differences between anarchism and nationalism (something like the page on Marxism and Anarchism has). I've started that discussion but it needs more work. a good discussion of that from an APOC perspective can be found in Roger White's article Post Colonial Anarchism[1]. that's about it, i hope people will extend and improve this article rather then simply knee-jerking on it one way or the other. Anarchocelt 00:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very sure what was wrong with the old title. Still, I suppose the wider setting makes it less vulnerable to the criticism that nationalist anarchism scarcely exists. It seems you did a cut and paste move which means the edit history has been left behind along with the previous two incarnations of the talk page. I've fixed the redirect and I'll see what I can do about the double redirects, but I discovered the new version is up for a cut and paste repair job and apparently that can only be done by an admin.
Thanks for the compliment when you inserted my talk page text. Actually, I think I can probably phrase it a bit better than I did on the talk page. "Critics of Black Ram" — you mean such a tiny affinity group has critics out there? Presumably, they've published. This, I really have to read. But you're right that the group wasn't very important, and I wouldn't want to build it up into more than it was. They had the name and concept before some other people did, and they had a thing about rescuing nationalism from fascists, at a time when I don't think anarchists were thinking that stuff in my part of the world. That's all. It was a pretty downmarket paper, the ideology came wrapped up in cartoons and I wouldn't want anyone to be disappointed when they saw a copy.
Just a couple of points: (1) Volkisch-anarchism isn't a modern fusion, it's at least as old as Landauer and I was planning to write a section on Herder as an 18th-century forerunner. And (2) Third Positionism is a bit more than an anarchist-nationalist fusion: it comes in flavours like National Bolshevism for a start. So I don't think some of these new section headings quite work out. Gnostrat 04:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
well, i thought the new title was better because it allowed for discussion of anarchist involvement in nationalist movements that didn't involve explicit fusions between the idealogies, allowing me to expand the discussion to include anarchist involvement in various decolonization / national liberation struggles which is important not only for this article but for the larger discussion onf anarchism and anti-imperialism. as per black ram, well apparently they have at least some critics, they seem to be rather vocal on these talk pages.... i dunno. I'm actually rather sympathetic to the idea of reclaiming symbolism and whatnot, though the swastika is a bit of a reach for any group that's majority-white (and its sad that race impacts credibility, but in the real world it does, like it or not). please feel free to adjust the content headings/categorization, etc. I know a lot about historical anarchism involvement in nationalist movements, but not much about the more modern groupings such as black ram, third positionism, etc. I've tried to add what i can and improve what i can but i'm sure there's plenty more room for improvement.

Anarchism and Nationalism in China[edit]

one edit i've noticed that i'm going to revert, however, is the new quote added to the section on chinese anarchism is misleading, and taken out of context Anarchists were involved in the KMT long before communism was even heard of in China, it was anarchists that introduced their communist "comrades" into the kmt(!), only to brutally suppressed by those erstwhile comrades. it's true that after the suppression of the communists many anarchists who had previously declined to be involved with the nationalists became more open to the idea, but it was not at all the genesis of their involvement. Dirliks book, which is being cited, actually goes into quite a bit of depth on this history. Anarchocelt 10:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the quote and certainly we should show howthe sense of opportunism was just asprevalent amongst the anarchists who migrated to bolshevism as amongst those who remained rooted in anarchism.Harrypotter 11:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
harry, could you provide a page number for that quote as per referencing guidlines? i've got the book sitting on my shelf and i'd like to look it up. also, while i appreciate that you may well have a personal interest in exposing "opportunism", please keep in mind that the purpose of this article is to illustrate connections between anarchism and nationalism, not expose opportunism or any other pov agenda. thanks Anarchocelt 02:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
as no page number has been forthcoming I am going to delete the quote until one is provided. 21:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism etc.[edit]

As I've pointed out, the division into 'historical' and 'modern' sections is artificial. I'm going to remove them but leave a rough chronological ordering, for now. In the longer term, we might think about whether some other arrangement is more natural, e.g left/right or by geography or culture.

I think moving the antisemitism material was a mistake. Leftism and Anti-semitism will almost certainly be deleted, but the anarchism-related material in it served a function here. Some people might prefer not to talk about it, but if we're going to have a paragraph in the introduction mysteriously bringing up Proudhon's and Bakunin's antisemitism without prior explanation, and if we are to account for how come they were claimed by far-right 'nationalism' (and their continuing significance for some of the far-right at the present time), then this material needs to be included, with the proper observation that their antisemitism has no intrinsic relation to the rest of their thought (hence we also have left-wing nationalist anarchism, without the antisemitism).

As I've stated loads of times, I don't want to suggest that nationalist anarchism is fascist or leads inexorably to fascism, but equally we can't cover our eyes and pretend there was nothing in Proudhon & co for fascists to exploit. I think this material should go back in somewhere, irrespective of whether the new antisemitism article gets deleted or not. Gnostrat 01:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

bakunin in siberia[edit]

I've removed the sentance "He was an apologist for Russian colonization of Siberia, receiving funds from Nikolay Muravyov-Amursky, Governor of eastern Siberia." refering to bakunin becaues even if with was true - and it's not - it would have nothing to do with historical linkages between anarchism and nationalism. for the sake of accuracy, Bakunin wasn't an appologist for the russian colonization of siberia, he was imprisoned in siberia and lost all his his teeth from scurvy while rotting in a russian prison there. after release from prison he was allowed to live relatively "freely" in the prison colony there until he managed to escape to america. and yes, he was able to get money from a relative of his who was in a position of power there after his release from prison to help finance his escape, so what? calling someone an "apologist" for colonization because they're a prisoner in a prison colony is more then just misleading, it's downright stupid. Anarchocelt 02:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but you seem to be making edits from a position of ignorance, and then accusing those who canoffer references for their edits stupid. If you do not understand why something is so, perhaps it might be better to raise it onthe talk page first. Bakunin received money from Nikolay Muravyov-Amursky, who was foremost authority figure in the colony. I do not understand how you imagine Bakunin's suffering in jail prior to this alters this fact. Futher when Herzen criticised Muravyov in The Bell, Bakunin wrote vigorously in his patron's defence (see Bakunin, Yokohama and the Dawning of the Pacific by Peter Billingsley). Also Philipp Franz von Siebold son, who met Bakunin when he was with his father in Yokohama indicated that Bakunin's escape was facilitated by the authorities. It was about this time that Muravyov was removed from his position as Governor General, but whether this precipitated Bakunin's departure would be to stray into original research. However one thing is clear, there was a grouping which considered breaking away,setting up a United States of Siberia, and even linking up with the USA. Bakunin was involved with this group, and was not troubled by the removal ethnic Han from the banks of the Amura. Or indeed the unequal Treaty of Aigun Muravyov imposed on the Japanese Max Nettlau remarked:
"This may be expalined by Bakunin's increasing nationalist psychosis, induced and nourished by the expansionist ideas of the officials and exploiters who surrounded him in Siberia, causing him to overlook the plight of their victims." Check also the Conclusion: On Nationalism section of Osugi Sakae - a biography.Harrypotter 23:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
And the relevance to an article on Anarchism and Nationalism is what exactly? Other then to further your agenda of portraying as many anarchists as possible in as negative a light as possible regardless of facts, that is? Words like "apologist" are inherently value-laden and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. if you want to do some research and write a well-sourced NPOV section on anarchist involvement in Siberian Nationalism (presumably involving more then just the fact that Bakunin got money from someone who advocated it in order to help him escape a prison colony) that would be both informative and relevant. The current passage is neither. And, of course if no such involvement existed then i'd suggest you spend your time on something more constructive. Anarchocelt 07:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
My dear Anarchocelt, if you find the point badly phrased, it would be much more positive step to alter the wording rather than just removing material without dealing with the key issues. I have put the Nettlau quote in the article which I feel answers your question. Surely this is putting Max Nettlau, an anarchist historian, in a positive light? As you know,the issue runs far deeper than Baku borrowing a couple of bob from his relly.Harrypotter 13:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I still don't think it's particularly relevant, Bakunin may have been an influential anarchist but his personal sympathies for or against the siberian colony where he was imprisoned don't have much bearing on the historical relationship between anarchism and nationalism. And no, i really dont' think it goes any "Deeper" then bakunin himself as an individual - if it even goes that deep. You may not have grasped this yet, but anarchists as a whole aren't particularly attached to their theorists as individuals. If somebody writes something intelligent we pick it up, and if they write something else that is less intelligent we discard it. bakunin's personal opinions (whatever they may have been, and "failing to object" on the part of a prisoner cannot be reasonably construed to imply support) on the removal of ethnic han from the colony where he was imprisoned are completely and totally irrelevant to anarchism as an ideology and a movement. ESPECIALLY when his time in siberia predated his self-identification as an Anarchist by more then 4 years!!! during the time period you're talking about Bakunin still described himself as a pan-slavic nationalist - as you would know if you'd actually read the pdf article you cited for your edit. dear gods man, get off your white horse and quite charging at straw men. and while your at it stop inserting irrelevant, misleading, and downright dishonest material into wikipedia. Anarchocelt 06:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
My dear Anarchocelt I am afraid I had to revert much of your edit. Nettlau specifically referred to his period in Siberia. Also Bakunin wasnot a prisoner, but an exile. His situation is very different from the Portugese anarchists who were sent to penal servitude. Of course it is relevant to include his support for colonialism in an article on anarchism and nationalism. I would be grateful if you could refrain from being so abusive, just because I don't subscribe to the same ideology as you. Of course anarchists are as keen as any other ideologues to highlight the preceived successes of their favoured ideology, and to sweep problematic areas under the carpet. However I don't see what this has to do with intelligence. I do feel the section should be retitled: Historical fusions of nationalism and anarchism suffers from the same sort of retrojection of twenty first century political issues as the Celtic anarchism article. What seems a better approach to me is a section on Proudhon, particularly looking at his La Guerre et la paix and his impact on bot anarchism and Fench fascism. Then a section on the emergence of anarchism - through the likes of Bakunin, Fanelli and others from European radical nationalism. The current material on Bakunin should be enhanced by an account of his career in Italy, his meeting with Garibaldi, and collaborationwith Mazzini, through his participation on the League for Peace and Freedom to the formation of the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy (a page which incidently deserves more than single sentence it currently sports) and the veritable split in the First International. Perhaps if you remind yourself that you are not editing an article for an anarchist publication, but working with a more diverse range of editors you might find it easier to help develop this article, rather than risk casing offense by accusing people of inserting "downright dishonest material" when this is so far from the case.Harrypotter 05:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You're right, the Bakunin material (or most of it, anyhow) should be hived off into a new section. The detailed claims and counterclaims we're disputing here aren't material for an "Overview". I would also go further back than Proudhon and begin the article with a section (which I'm composing) on Herder in the 18th century, leading towards Mazzini and the völkisch movement later on. We are dealing with two ideological streams here, and you can't very well understand 19th-century nationalism (or its anarchist entanglements?) without reference to Herder in the 18th. His concept of the nation is very interesting and in some ways prefigures anarchism.
But Harry, just one point: I don't understand your talk of Bakunin's nationalism and Russian imperialism in the same breath. As you yourself observed, Siberian nationalism was separatist. If Bakunin supported a movement which would break up the Russian Empire, this would be commendable anti-imperialism entirely in keeping with his decentralist impulses. I haven't checked the specific areas in which Bakunin defended Muravyov, but everybody — even a Governor-General — has both good and bad points. Evidently Muravyov was considered a liberalizer and also favoured measures to protect indigenous Siberian religious cultures. Incidentally, given that the Amur country was the homeland of Amuric and Tungusic peoples, and well outside the historic core territories of the Han, would not the presence of the latter have been perceived as colonialism, and their removal as an anti-colonial act (of the kind widely championed by leftists in the 20th century) even if Russia's own motives in this were far from ideal? Gnostrat 22:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It is important to remember that at this time Alaska was part of the Russian Empire. The idea being mooted was to break away from the Russian empire and even to join the USA. (This idea aslo came up Japan in with the Republic of Ezo (1868–1869) shortly after the Alaska purchase. Nikolay Muravyov-Amursky was a liberal imperialist. Bakunin's support for him, and particularly the scessionist movement, may well fit in with his decentralism. Looking at the struggle between Russia and China, I would say it is clearly inter-imperialist rivalry. To consider it as anti-colonial would be like regarding the German war effort as anti-colonial because they backed the Ghadar Party. Imperialism is always ready to dress itself in whatever garb suits its purpose, whether it is the so-called democratic occupation of Iraq, or the Christianity of London Virginia Company's invasion of North America.Harrypotter 11:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Stalinism or Marxism[edit]

The use of the term Stalinism was replaced by Marxism, with the reason being that Stalin had not risen to power by 1927. It is hard to see why. Certainly the policy of Bolshevisation was waged between 1924-5, by the Stalinists, and they took control of the Communist Party of Italy in January 1926. Indeed check out Trostky on China, to see how Trotsky rejected the ECCI policy in China. I think we really need to keep the term stalinist.Harrypotter 00:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Stalinism is a form of marxism, the trotskyist argument that denies the linkage is pure silliness put forward by people who don't want to admit that "dictatorship of the proletariat" necessitates a dictatorship. Would "Bolshevism" be an acceptable compromise? Anarchocelt 06:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I have no truck with Trotskyism, to dismss that position as "silliness" in circumstances when 4 out of 5 of the largest party in the comintern were killed I feel is a bit trite. I think the Trotsky was not wishing to deny the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but was concerned about the fate of the party apparatus in China, while Stalin was happy to see it massacred (leaving a stalinist rump led by Mao, because it consolidated his position both inthe comintern and in the Soviet Union. I did consider Bolshevik as a suitable term, and indeed would be prepared to comprmise on that, as I feel that the policy as much led to the domination of teh Stalinists as being a product of their policy, and that the Trotskyist position was woefully inadequate even for their own political goals, let alone the antithetical goal of proletarian revolution. However, we may well find that this terminology does not get challenged by anyone with a deeper understanding of Trotskyism simply because they never venture to scrutinise this page.Harrypotter 18:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

National-Anarchism[edit]

This section desperately needs a more NPOV tone, IMO. Rather than attempt to describe what N-As actually believe, it seems far more interested in using weasel words to emphasise the fact that "most anarchists" apparently dislike N-A (I use dislike rather than disagree, because I actually believe that "most anarchists" would probably find little they actually disagree with in N-A if they were to objectively analyse the philosophy without simply dismissing it as "fascist"). Absolutely no mention is made of the fact that most white nationalists also reject N-A as being "communist", which puts it in a far greater context. N-As do not advocate segregation, in which a state imposes seperate living on two ethnic groups sharing its territory, but peaceful, voluntary seperation, for those who desire it. The mention of Mussolini and the fascist split is completely irrelevant - N-As reject fascism and all other statist forms. And finally, N-A is not right-wing - by its very nature it transcends the left/right view of the political spectrum. I am aware there a few open-minded souls editing this page, so I hope I won't be drowned out by the leftists too quickly. Belzub 14:43, 05 December 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reworded it. Apologies for my slightly histrionic post here! I don't mean to attack any leftists here, or indeed anyone of any political persuasion. I hope the new section is to everybody's satisfaction, but if not please discuss it here and we'll try and come to some conclusion. I removed all of the stuff about Mussolini - it's just an irrelevant and subjective tangent, trying to compare N-As with Mussolini's fascists and mainstream anarchists with state-socialists, both of which are pretty insulting, as someone who was once a mainstream anarchist. I think the historical links between fascism and anarchism are all very interesting and they should be covered extensively here, but please leave it out of the N-A section, as it's not revelant to a modern movement. Belzub 13:38, 06 December 2007 (UTC)

Image size[edit]

Skomorokh, in removing the specified image widths you have reduced the anarcho-swastika image to a ridiculously tiny size compared with the rest. I know I've always insisted Black Ram was not too important, but this is an svg image and is meant to be scaled up. It strikingly illustrates the subject matter and the size which I chose was a happy optimum which, by the way, I myself reduced from a size that was a little overbearing. On printouts, 165px yields the least fuzzy edges for the best spacing of surrounding text. Anybody who does layout here needs an artist's eye, as some horrendous examples would amply demonstrate.

In your edit summary you say that "The Manual of Style does not condone forcing image sizes. Thumb allows each reader to assert their own preferences". I'm afraid it just doesn't work like that. Whatever preferences you set (180px by default), everything larger will be reduced to fit but every image whose original is smaller will be retained at that smaller size, even if that is disproportionately minute. The Manual of Style doesn't disallow an editor from specifying image width. "Not necessary" does not mean the same thing as "forbidden". That is why the guideline continues: "However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article". Which is precisely what I did in the first place. I have reverted the image again but I am not looking for a revert war and I would be happy if you would remember that the MOS is a "guideline" to be applied "with common sense and the occasional exception". Gnostrat (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I also discovered the following on WP:LAYOUT: "300px may be considered a limit, as this is approximately half Wikipedia's text space's width on a 800x600 screen. It is a good idea to try and maintain visual coherence by aligning the width of images and templates on a given page". So the WP guidelines appear to present no overall consistency in advising editors against fixing the sizes of images, and if any section of the guidelines suggests they shouldn't (as distinct from needn't), this would be contrary to sound common sense. Equalising image sizes enhances the tidiness of articles and is a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Leaving the widths unaligned would, in a good many cases, result in such marked size variation that a pretty messy looking article would be the outcome. Gnostrat (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding to this sooner; I was not aware that image formats with fluid scalability such as SVG existed. You're quite right. Skomorokh incite 16:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks : ) Gnostrat (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong state?[edit]

The following has been copied from User talk:Tazmaniacs:

Hi, regarding your edit to Anarchism and nationalism, I actually think you got it right on an earlier edit. The vague "right-wing" and "left-wing" labels have never struck me as very meaningful. We ought to be saying something more, and "strong state" fits the context if you look at how the next sentence follows on. Actually the shift away from liberal nationalism in the later 19th century was precisely towards a strong state model a la Bismarck. You objected that "far-right" nationalists can be anti-state and subversive, and I agree with you, but doesn't that generally mean that in fact they are opposing what they see as a weak, liberal state in the cause of setting up an even stronger one? I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass here, just aiming for the most accurate descriptions we can manage and hoping I don't get myself a reputation for nit-picking. Gnostrat 17:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I just thought to interject, in light of your comments above and the fact that I could not find the pertinent comments (if any) on the talk page of the article you have linked to, regarding the possibility of concieving of a Far Right capable of an anti-statist or 'subversive' line without favouring a stronger state form (Fascism as traditionally concieved). Whether directly relevent to the article in question or not, certainly one could argue that sections of the modern right appear to exhibit just this quality, with good examples being offered by sections of the survivalist right in The United States; another might be that of the Unabomber, a case where the term 'Anarchist' actually has (most would agree inappropriately) been applied. LSmok3 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A better place to continue this discussion would be on the article's talk page where everyone can participate. Tazmaniacs would no doubt prefer this; I hadn't noticed the policy statement at the top of the page when I made my earlier posting. So I hope neither of you will object if I copy this section over to Talk: Anarchism and nationalism and we can carry on there. Gnostrat (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Now to answer your interjection, my earlier comments related to the phrase "right-wing ideology" in the third paragraph of the Overview ("the perception of nationalism itself has shifted from being a left-wing ideology aimed at liberation (liberal nationalism) to a right-wing ideology"). Taz's edit here had explained this as "ethnic nationalism". I objected to a simple equation of "right-wing" nationalism with "ethnic" nationalism and Taz agreed to its removal, but we didn't agree on reverting to the previous formulation ("strong state") and there the matter was left.

The sentence finishes in what to my mind is an unsatisfactory way. The phrase "left-wing ideology" here is explained as liberal nationalism, which is an appropriate interpretation in the context of that period, but "right-wing" nationalism, left unexplained, is just an empty expression.

My point was and is that the shift which happened at that time (second half of the 19th century) was towards strong-state nationalism (which might be epitomised by contrasting the liberalising revolutionary Mazzini with the appalling statist Treitschke). I accept that today it would be harder to make an equation between statist nationalism and the"far right", what with primitivist Stone-Age conservatives, neo-nazis advocating leaderless resistance, survivalists holed up in mountain compounds, and the like. Many of these people do still have a monolithic state (or even empire) as their long-term objective, but not all of them do.

Of course this raises the question of just what is right-wing anyway? Neither "left" nor "right" seem to have any very useful meaning, and we should clarify what exactly we are talking about whenever we resort to them. In the context of the later 19th century, we are talking about a shift from liberal ("left") nationalism to conservative ("right") nationalism that involves a corresponding rise of strong-state ideology, arresting (and partly co-opting) the earlier democratic-populist and decentralising-federating impulses. Gnostrat (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi there. I hadn't grabbed the edit where you moved the comment across, and have only just had time to respond. I've also only just read the article in question.

Firstly, the subject matter is very specialised, and I'm not entirely as au fait with Anarchism as historical subject as I might be, particularly in this context, this subject is somewhat new to me. I'm offering my few cents worth anyway. The original comment was simply inspired by your quibble with regard to the establishment of a stronger state form by Right elements, and the possibility of concieving of a Right that rejected the state form altogether. I think the two examples I gave, one broad, one very specific, are basically correct in citing two examples drawn from the periphery of contemporary Right politics that adopt an essentially anti-statist line. I was thinking of the post-apolcalyptic and Fundamentalist survivalist tendancy, for example. Some research might also be in order. In both cases, of course, one might also consider what is deemed to supplant established order, and in both cases one would expect to see the Family (with capital 'F'), the clan, a return to survival by brawn, and so on - certainly 'Volkish' in its own way, but somewhat alien to the Leftish folk tendancy which seems implied by Black Ram et al. Might one also think of 60s commune pioneering here too; the co-operativism of commune life is surely stisll of influence on the Left of the spectrum; the emphasis of historical revival and folk traditions makes perfect sense amidst a modernity of fragmentation and commercialism, and alienated search for identity - think of the (60s) Diggers and the convoy, for example. In the US in particular there has been a movement on the Right away from the state, perhaps preempted by US Federalism and Big Government, perceptions of foreign investment and control, the growth of US corporations to staggering levels of power and influence, toward this 'the world is nigh' small group resistence, with the emphasis on what are regarded as values rooted in locality, family, survival, independence, and the settler tradition, again peculiar to the US. Meanwhile, the equation of Statist Nationalism and the Far Right in general is still fair, as you say the basic fact being that in the vast majority of cases that is what the Far Right represents. The exceptions are largely American. There is a missing phrase here, that being the 'Nation State'.

Secondly, this distinction between 'Right' and 'Left' Nationalism has me a little perplexed. The basic historical distinction was generally, as I saw it, a colonial one, the difference between Empire nationalism, say, and self-rule. The groundwork for liberation in Ireland alone has always seen the Left cluster around the right to self-government, statist or otherwise, and the acceptance that that could be the only basis for anything else. Think also of 19th century Socialist slogans like 'England should feed her own people' and 'a commonwealth where wealth is common'.

Lastly, as to the Right and Left as distinctions in general, I can only offer the historical one, a Right that sprang from the interests of propertied fledging mercantile interests, and later industrialists, and their historical compromise with the ideology of monarchist feudalism in Britain, and the movements that grew out of opposition to the same, from the commonist Diggers onward. Central features in the latter case have at least been the emphasis of commonality against the family as bearing structure, the democratic dispersal of power against hierarchy and birthright, the common ownership of property against private monopoly and profit, human bond, the brotherhood of man, against colonialism and war. The issue of nationalism and race are encompassed in all. LSmok3 (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Funeraloftheanarchistgalli.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Funeraloftheanarchistgalli.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary. Some naughty vandal removed the reference to fascism!Harrypotter (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Zeitgeist[edit]

The early pioneers of anarchism were a product of the spirit of their times I am not quite sure what this sentence is doing in the piece. Is not everyone a product of their times? In what way were early pioneers of anarchism especially so? Also this is not referenced.Harrypotter (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It does seem an uninformative statement. Aside from Gnosrat (talk · contribs) and Anarchocelt (talk · contribs), no-one really maintains this article besides yourself, so I'd say go ahead and be bold in making whatever edits you like unless you're unsure about something. Regards, Skomorokh 19:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a generalisation which I derived by summarising Hearder's book on 19th-century Europe. However, it's difficult to identify one specific page on which all the linkages are brought together. You get halfway there on p.20 ("The successful leaders of the post-1830 world may have been idealists or ruthless careerists...but they had this in common: they all recognized the growing significance of the liberal and nationalist ideas which had survived the defeat of Napoleon.") or p.64 ("In the history of political thought the period 1830 to 1880 may be defined as the rise and decline of laissez-faire liberalism accompanied by growing enthusiasm for the principle of nationality...almost all the political philosophers of the period had in common a firm belief in human progress.") Elsewhere, Hearder traces the origins of socialism in the same milieu, among people who often also accepted some or all of the liberal principles of individual freedom, property, competition, and nationhood. Put the laissez-faire liberalism together with the socialism, as Proudhon did, and you have the foundations of anarchism.
So basically the sentence is saying that the earliest socialists and anarchists were immersed in the world and outlook of national-liberalism. The statement is explained by what follows it. I won't object if you have a better way of saying it, or better references which make the point in a more explicit and joined-up way. Gnostrat (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

File:N-A Flag.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:N-A Flag.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do the "national anarchists" deserve a section?[edit]

Shouldn't we all be trying to draw attention away from this weird white nationalist "movement"? It's barely notable and articles like this that discusses the historical relationship between nationalism and anarchism ends up drawing attention to it. It's like having the meritocracy party (look it up) in the meritocracy article. And then the article practically fawns over its superspecialawesomeness and some crap about "the anarch" without even mentioning that this idea was thought up by white nationalists appropriating counter-culture symbolism for reactionary means and that no one knows what the hell it is. Some idiot using Wikipedia to study Mikhail Bakunin's pan-slavic ideas will be given the impression that this "National-Anarchism" is some benign post-anarchist development and isn't a big deal. It's inclusion in the article is quite obviously just propaganda. Hell, national-bolshevism is un-ironically a more popular idea (albeit in Russia) --66.233.55.145 (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Scope of this article?[edit]

This article seems not to be appropriate for describing the relationship between anarchism and nationalism. Well, the first section gives a brief account of the wide-spread rejection of nationalism in anarchist discourses. However, in the introduction this is widely ignored. It picks out only positive relationships between anarchism and nationalism, although they are certainly not mainstream in anarchist discourses. Does it really argue that Proudhon was nationalist? He was anti-semitic, but nationalist? That seems to be bizarre! And why does the article mention Bakunin all the time? Because of his statements from the time when he was not yet an anarchist![2] --Chricho ∀ (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Most of these things you speak about were simply unsourced affirmations linked to bad arguments of links between anarchism and nationalist movements. As such much of that simply cannot go in this article.--Eduen (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)