A statement in support of Solidarity Collectives and ABC-Belarus has been published on the internet,
signed by a number of groups and individuals. https://www.solidaritycollectives.org/en/on-silencingvoices-from-eastern-europe-at-anarchist-events-in-eu/
We are publishing our response, which is not, however, a dialogue with these open and covert
supporters of militarism. We simply want to share our analysis publicly and strengthen the connection
between people with an anti-militarist and revolutionary defeatist perspective.
The statement to which we are responding was written by supporters of the war, who reproduce a binary narrative for this purpose: empathetic and supportive Eastern European anarchists versus arrogant and unsupportive anarchists from Western Europe. This narrative is false and manipulative. Those who share this narrative refuse to acknowledge that criticism of pro-war projects such as Solidarity Collectives and ABC (Belarus) also exists within the anarchist milieu in Eastern Europe. The signatories of the statement ignore this anti-militarist tendency in their narrative or lie when they claim that these are Putinists or pro-Russian propagandists. They repeatedly claim that the “Eastern European voice” is overlooked in Western Europe, while they themselves overlook anti-militarist and anti-war voices from Eastern European regions. It should be added that these overlooked voices also come from a relatively large number of people directly from the war zone. By this we mean not only anarchist collectives, but also other working-class people who refuse to support the war efforts of “their” and neighboring states. Let’s look at how many people have deserted from the Russian and Ukrainian armies and how many people in both countries are avoiding mobilization(1). Hundreds of thousands of people are ignored by this “radical left” that tells us it represents the voices of Eastern Europe and fights against the arrogance of the West. Their binary narrative is hypocritical. The contradiction is not between anarchists from the West and those from the East. There is only a contradiction between the revolutionary and counterrevolutionary tendencies, which exist in all regions.
We quote from their statement: “They are writing various kinds of “statements” condemning work in support of Ukrainian resistance to the Russian invasion.”
We respond: We do not condemn resistance to the Russian invasion. We are not even opposed to armed struggle, as long as it does not replicate militaristic logic and is directed against states and their armies. However, we reject the strategy of conventional warfare and militaristic forms of struggle. From an anarchist perspective, resistance to the aggressive policies of one state (e.g., Russia) should not be a practical service in the defense of another state (e.g., Ukraine). We support autonomous resistance against Putinism and Russian imperialism, but also against the Zelensky regime and EU/NATO imperialism. This is anarchist resistance against war.
We quote from their statement: “We believe in the need for dialogue on controversial issues.”
We respond: They have long presented themselves as “experts in monologue”, but suddenly they pretend to be interested in dialogue. This is not at all convincing. People who deliberately avoid face-to-face dialogue, slander anarchists(2), engage in dangerous doxxing(3), and are verbally and physically aggressive(4) are collaborating on these projects. Some signatories also pressure other groups to prevent anti-militarists from attending anarchist events(5) or directly participate in sabotaging anti-militarist activities(6). We believe that the call for dialogue is a manipulative political calculation in this context. They want to gain spaces in which they will receive money and resources for soldiers. We believe that they do not want to listen to criticism from their opponents and discuss controversial issues. Anarchists have repeatedly expressed critical analysis of their militaristic and pro-war tendencies in the past. There has been no self-reflection or acknowledgment of mistakes. So why insist on dialogue with them? It cannot be a constructive process.
We quote from their statement: “We do not consider the work of the “Solidarity Collectives” and “ABC-Belarus” to be in any way pro-war or supportive of state militarism.”
We respond: Both of these groups provide propaganda, financial, and material support to the soldiers of the Ukrainian army, which is at war with Russia. Why do the signatories of this statement refuse to acknowledge that the Ukrainian army and its soldiers are the embodiment of state militarism? There is no structure more militaristic than a state army. Why do these people refuse to acknowledge that they are defending a pro-war position when they support soldiers of the state army involved in the war? Is it insincerity, political manipulation, or do they fail to understand the basic context? They claim to be against militarism, but when soldiers desert the Ukrainian army or men in Ukraine are forcibly mobilized, they do not show practical solidarity with these people. They object to Russia’s militarism, but the militarism of Ukraine/NATO/EU is their main ally. We refuse to cooperate with them because they advocate cooperation with Western imperialism in its war against Russian imperialism. However, we also do not cooperate with those who cooperate with Russian imperialism, because this is not a constructive strategy that the working class could effectively use against American and European imperialism. We reject all one-sided anti-imperialism. We fight against all imperialist states and blocs.
The list of names and titles under the declaration is very long, but that does not mean it is significant. Socially revolutionary groups do not evaluate the quality of practice by quantitative measures. The number of signatures under a manipulative and deceitful statement does not make it a valuable document. Not even the biggest sum of socially reactionary and pro-war groups can never give rise to revolutionary anarchist practice.
The list of signatories to the aforementioned statement includes quite a few liars, manipulators, aggressors, collaborators with the far right(7), as well as dangerous doxxers and nationalists(8). Groups such as Solidarity Collectives and ABC – Belarus discredit themselves by publicly declaring that they maintain contact with these controversial individuals. If they express concern that anarchists do not want to cooperate with them, this is actually a positive sign. While left-wing supporters of militarism are losing support, the revolutionary anarchist tendency is gaining the necessary energy.
– Some anarchists from Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and the Balkans
We in the AnarCom Network fully support this statement and call on other internationalists to also support it.
AnarCom Network 