Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 22:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jamal Hannah <jah-AT-iww.org>
Subject: AUT: Re: [apoc] Re: Race and Class War


On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Art McGee wrote:

> This is called REVOLUTIONARY NATIONALISM, and can also
> encompass a general Socialist or Anarchist streak. Lorenzo
> Komboa Ervin is a Revolutionary Nationalist. He is an
> Anarchist, but he believes in the SELF-DETERMINATION
> and LEADERSHIP of Black people. The two ideas are NOT
> contradictory, as some might assume.

All forms of "revolutionary nationalism" I have ever heard of have
been of an authoritarian socialist or reformist kind ("Revolutionary" in
this sense simply means changing the society to favor another group of
people's interests, but it does not neccesarily mean a progressive change,
such as actual socialism at the level or workers controlling the means of
production.. in fact, no nationalist movement has ever put power in the
hands of workers, but rather a representative government that claims to
speak for the worker's interests.)

I have never heard Lorenzo Komboa Ervin describe himself as a
"revolutionary nationalist". The last time I heard him use a label for
himself it was as an "autonomist". In Lorenzo's book, "Anarchism
and the Black Revolution" he talks about standard anarchism, not
nationalism, as far as I can remember.  I do not wish to second-guess
Lorenzo, but if he does cow consider himelf a nationalist I would be
disappointed.  And, I will note, simply because Lorenzo might call himself
that does not mean that I, or other african-american anarchists should
embrace it too.  I see revolutionary nationalism as one of the negative
holdovers from the flawed days of the 60's New Left.  Anarchist Black
Cross supports some nationalist prisoners, and it could be that some
people feel that the revolutionary nationalism these people are in prison
for should be upheld.  I do not think so.  I feel it is a grave mistake to
mix anarchism with natioanlism... I believe it simply ceases to be
anarchism at all. There are a number of people who see anarchism as simply
another form of "leftism": reformist socialism or authoritarian communism,
and not something fundamentaly and significantly different which rejects
revolutionary nationalism. This is a mistake and represents a
misunderstanding of anarchism.

It is also worth noting that aside from Lorenzo's book, the other major
book on black anarchism, "African Anarchism", is also non-nationalist, and
in fact, the Awareness League (in Nigeria), the largest black anarchist
organization (if not the only one), is a non-nationalist organization.

"Self-determination" is already addressed in anarchism. "Leadership" is a
more dubious concept.  The closest thing to leaders anarchists have are
recallable delegates within organizations: people who can be removed from
their positions in a union, council, collective, co-op or commune
at any time by the rank-and-file, or, another type of "leader" might be
the person who writes theory who is looked upon with respect, but does not
command any direct power over others.  If one wishes to be a "leader" in
the sense of commanding others or directing things, anarchism is not the
type of movement that is very accomodating to this desire.

I should also point out that the idea of nationalism has always
proven itself reactionary. We know that white nationalists are openly
reactionary... but every "leftist" nationalist movement has had
authoritarian overtones... the nations that are created are often corrupt
(as is repeatedly the case in Africa). We cannot assume that a people of
color nationalism will magicly be better than any other form of
nationalism simply because these are people of color or the oppressed. We
have already seen how reactionary and destructive Maoism was for China, a
3rd World country.  It is the idea of nationalism that will poison any
kind of anarchism it is linked to, and negate the anarchist aspects.
(Just as Maoism poisoned the idea of communism with it's nationalism and
centralization.)

There is also the tactical issue... if people of color are nationalists,
then whites will be more likely to say "Why cant we be nationalist too?".
It is like "Black Power".. if you have "Black Power", many whites will
say they want "White Power".  If you do not use such concepts
and instead take on a more universal idea of freedom, it diffuses
the polemical, divisive nature of what one is striving for, because people
know you want freedom for everyone, not simply some section of the
people. Anarchism has always embraced freedom for everyone, of all races,
cultures, and nationalities. This is why nationalists grow impatient with
anarchists and eventualy abandon anarchism altogether... take for example
the Basque Country in Spain. While there has been much anarchist activity
in that area, the Basque nationalists are at odds witht he anarchists
because they know they have different goals in mind. The nationalist
position does not go beyond setting up some kind of nation for the people
it represents.

The term "nationalism" implies the creation of a nation... and thus a
state, which is a totaly anti-anarchist idea. If one does not want to set
up a state or a nation, then the term "nationalism" is being used
rhetoricly and will only confuse people, or will draw more nationalists
to the movement who do not care about anarchist ideas at all.  If one is a
"nationalist" but they claim they do not want to create a nation-state,
then there is no point in using the term "nationalism" at all and it makes
more sense to use terms like "autonomist", or "anarchist".

It is possible that "revolutionary nationalists" assume that there
must be a stage one goes through first, where a nation is created,
before one can reach true anarchism (libertarian communism) for
everyone.  This makes me think of the trickle-down theory of capitalism,
where before you reach economic equality you must go through a stage of
extreme capitalism (if you ever reach any "equality at all), or the
authoritarian or reformist socialist concept of the state "withering
away", as some sort of stage theory where true communism is eventualy
reached.

New Left black power advocates have often reacted to other (usualy
white) activist's objections to black nationalism or seperatism as
"racist" or "fear of black power". But in most cases this is not true..
it is actualy a criticism of the basic theoretical line of nationalism,
because these people see it as counter-productive and reactionary.. a bad
path to travel. It is important that every disagreement is not denounced
as racist, because this stifles debate. (It is like the tendency of some
feminists to denounce any male who objects to some aspects of their
feminism as "sexist", even if the feminism is of an authoritarian or
reformist type.)  There is a reason why anarchists do not support
organizations like the African People's Socialist Party... it is because
they do not see this organization as offering a viable form of socialism
or liberation, even if it speaks for people of color.  Even Lorenzo Komboa
Ervin criticized the New Black Panther parties that have recently sprung
up as nationalist groups, as oppossed to being anarchistic ones.

Nationalists who call themselves anarchists will find little, if any
support from actual anarchists, and they may complain that this is unfair
or some kind of conspiracy.. but that is not the case. It is because the
entire history of anarchism, and it's developed theories, has rejected
nationalism as a step backwards.. even the type that calls itself
"revolutionary".  Anarchists will quite naturaly object to nationalism
and all it implies.

Let me also point out that before one claims that the idea of an
anarchism that supports universal freedom for all people is a "white" or
"european" idea, I should point out that nationalism itself is a european
concept. There is also a cynical line of thinking that says that while
universal freedom/brotherhood concepts are OK for whites or Europeans,
what 3rd World or people of color need is an authoritarian or
"revolutionary nationalist" movement... this is an extremely cynical
view: the idea that the poor and oppressed and people of color cannot see
past predjudices and limitations, and should embrace nationalism as a form
of salvation, instead of working towards freedom for everyone, not just
people they share skin color or geography with.

> > some seem to feel that a form of nationalism or
> > authority/hierarchy is OK so long as it's based on
> > people of color's interests.
> 
> Nationalism in the RADICAL or REVOLUTIONARY sense is
> NOT synonomous with authoritarianism or hierarchy. The
> nationalism of radicals tends to center more around the
> issue of SELF-DETERMINATION, similar to what INDIGENOUS
> people demand.

I disagree.  Simply saying it isnt the same does not make it so.
Nationalism sets up barriers.. limitations.. walls and borders. It is
not a very liberating concept. It perhaps gives something to a certain
section of people, and enriches and betters a small group of nationalist
leaders.. but it does not come any closer to freeing humanity from
capitalism and the state, which is the primary goal of anarchism.

Some months ago I discovered somone named Troy Southgate who had started a
mailing-list for "national anarchists".  It was to promote an organization
based in the UK called the National Revolutionary Faction, and was a white
racist group. It occured to me that nationalists and reactionaries were
seeking to co-opt the increasingly popular anarchist movement, because of
it's prestige and it's well known universal call for freedom... (and the
fact that the Soviet model of "communism" had collapsed and now anarchism
was more popular then previous decades) but these nationalists did not
care about anarchism in any sense beyond the label and a few slogans.  I
set up a web page to counter this tendency, and nationalism in general:

http://flag.blackened.net/antinat/

It includes articles by anarchists that talk about nationalism and
criticize it.

 - Jamal H.



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---