Tuesday, 20 January 2009

National-Anarchism: On a Decisive Break with Far Right Ideology
David Michael (source)

1. Introduction
There is some discussion about the nature of the relationship between national-anarchism and what the Establishment’s media and propaganda organs call the ‘far right’. What this relationshipis must be a matter for empirical observation. What it needs to become, however, is a matter of some theoretical interest.

The main argument in this article is that the core values of national-anarchism often appear different from those of most so-called ‘far right’ political movements and that national-anarchism might profit greatly by distinguishing its core values very clearly from those of the so-called ‘far right’. Just as national-anarchism, by its very nature, allows its adherents to hold a wide variety ofperipheral values (Islamic, communist, Christian, Satanist, and so forth), so it is entirely possible for national-anarchists consistently to hold certain values in common with so-called ‘far-right’ movements as peripheral values. Nevertheless, serious problems, both theoretical and practical, emerge when such beliefs are presented as core beliefs of national-anarchism. It is suggested that, rather than regarding national-anarchism as some sort of offshoot or subcategory of ‘far-right ideology’, a more pragmatic relationship should exist between national-anarchists and those movements labelled as ‘far right’, involving, among other things, ad hoc cooperation on areas where there is mutual agreement.

2. On the Distinction Between Core and Peripheral Beliefs
A distinction is sometimes made between core beliefs and peripheral beliefs.[1] This distinction is made and employed somewhat differently by different writers, so for the purpose of this article I will make the following definitions. I will regard core beliefs as a body of beliefs the holding of which is both necessary and sufficient for subscription to a particular worldview. If you hold the core beliefs of a particular worldview then it follows that you subscribe to the worldview to which those beliefs are core; if you do not hold the core beliefs of a particular worldview then it follows that you do not subscribe to that worldview. Peripheral beliefs, on the other hand, are beliefs that might be derived from, or held as secondary to, or alongside, the core beliefs. Whether these peripheral beliefs are held or not has no bearing on whether one subscribes to the worldview for which these beliefs are peripheral. Peripheral beliefs can be changed or abandoned without in any way affecting one’s commitment to the worldview to which those beliefs are peripheral. Core beliefs, on the other hand, cannot be changed or abandoned without affecting one’s commitment to the world view to which those beliefs are core.
Barbour[2] gives the example that the notion that the nature of God was revealed to man by Christ is a core belief of Christianity. You have to accept it to be a Christian and if you do not accept it then you are not a Christian. We might argue, however, that belief in the intercessionary powers of saints is not a core belief of Christianity (you can be a Protestant without believing in it) although it might well be a core belief of Catholicism.
One difficulty with the discourse about core and peripheral beliefs is that it is not always clear which beliefs are core and which are peripheral to any given world view. One might reasonably assume that the clarity of the distinction, and the extent to which it is permitted to be contested, will vary from one belief system to the next. I want to suggest that it will not perhaps be too controversial of me to identify the core beliefs of national-anarchism as the following:

(a) That a one-world government, either in the form of a de jure global superstate or in the form of a de facto global superstate arising from an advanced state of globalization, is a bad thing.

(b) That imperialism and neo-imperialism are bad things.

(c) That the creation of small, more-or-less independent communities or homelands is a desirable alternative to globalization, imperialism and neo-imperialism and that a world built up of such communities would be a good thing.

(d) That the traditional political distinction between ‘left’ and ‘right’ is simplistic and unsuited to the modern world.

(e) That in the highly globalized world of today, which approximates to a de facto global superstate, a more useful distinction is that between ‘the system’ (‘the Establishment’) and ‘the enemies of the system’.

(f) ‘The system’ (‘the Establishment’), being a globalizing, imperialistic and neo-imperialistic institution, is a bad thing that should be opposed.

(g) That some degree of alliance formation between enemies of the system is a good thing.

I want to suggest that these are core beliefs — or more precisely, core values — in the sense that if one does not hold them all one cannot intelligibly be described as a national-anarchist in the sense of the word in which it is used nowadays. It might be the case that many national-anarchists might hold other political views besides these, but all other political views that they might hold are peripheral to their national-anarchism.
It may be observed that one strength of national-anarchism is that these core ideas are compatible with a wide variety of peripheral beliefs. Many radical anarchists, communists, Islamists and, yes, even some of those commonly labelled as ‘far right’ could often agree on each of the seven points outlined above. This makes national-anarchism a uniquely powerful tool for alliance formation and cross-ideological anti-Establishment political activism. In a world where the old conflict between ‘left’ and ‘right’ is fast becoming replaced by a new conflict between ‘the system’ and ‘the enemies of the system’, national-anarchism can be an extremely potent mechanism in binding together ‘the enemies of the system’.
3. Theoretical Problems with the ‘Far Right’

3.1 The concept of the ‘far right’ is a trick!
I have argued above that one core belief of national-anarchism is that ‘the traditional political distinction between “left” and “right” is simplistic and unsuited to the modern world’. Elsewhere I have argued that the distinction between ‘left’ and ‘right’ is merely one example of the general strategy of ‘divide and rule’ that is employed by the Establishment to create divisions — and in this case a fairly arbitrary division — in the ranks of its opponents. Specifically, I argued:
The ‘left/right’ distinction owes its origins to the seating plan implemented on 5 May 1789 in the French National Assembly. The clergy and nobility, who tended to oppose change, sat to the right of the speaker whereas the commons, who tended to favour change, sat to the left. However, many people who are opposed to change today are classified as ‘left wing’ … By contrast, Hitler, often regarded as the epitome of the ‘extreme right’, was scathing about the conservatism of the ‘right-wing’ parties of his day …[3]
I went on to argue, in the same article, that all of the other distinctions that are often drawn between ‘left’ and ‘right’ are utterly bogus. What about attitudes to state intervention? We can find statists on the ‘left’ (socialists) and on the ‘right’ (a whole plethora of regimes ranging from Mussolini’s Fascisti through to P. W. Botha’s South African regime and the one-nation Tories in Britain). We can find anti-statists on the ‘left’ (anarchists and arguably the communists who subscribe to the notion of the ‘withering away’ of the state) and on the ‘right’ (libertarians in the Hayek tradition). So what about attitudes to nationalism? We can find extremely nationalistic ‘leftist’ regimes (particularly the regimes of Stalin, Hoxha and Kim Jong Il) and extremely internationalistic ‘rightist’ regimes (most spectacularly among the advocates of free-market capitalism and globalization). It is hard to find any distinction, beyond perhaps a predisposition towards the use of particular rhetorical styles, between individuals and movements of the ‘left’ and those of the ‘right’.
If national-anarchists, as I have suggested, take the view that ‘left’ and ‘right’ are outdated and useless categories, then clearly it would be inconsistent of them to classify themselves using the ‘left-right’ terminology of their enemies. Moreover, for national-anarchists to use such terminology to describe themselves would be to accept the very Establishment frame of reference that is used to attack and divide their supporters and hence would be to collaborate with the Establishment in perpetuating the status quo.

3.2 Incompatibility of core national-anarchist ideas and commonly held ‘far-right’ ideas
By no means all movements that have attracted the label of ‘far right’ are imperialist but those that do espouse imperialistic doctrines are clearly on a collision course with core national-anarchist values. I have suggested above that an opposition to globalism, imperialism and neo-imperialism is one of the core values of national-anarchists. However, throughout history, many of the more prominent leaders of movements labelled as ‘far right’ have espoused views that are highly imperialistic and quite at odds with the basic national-anarchist notion of a world of small, independent communities doing their own thing.
In 1932 Benito Mussolini advocated imperialism thus:
For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death.[4]
Likewise, as I have argued elsewhere,[5] Hitler wrote that the German nation ‘must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation.’[6 ]

Many years later Hitler stated: ‘Germany has never demanded colonies for military purposes, but exclusively for economic purposes. It is obvious that in times of general prosperity the value of certain territories may decrease, but it is just as evident that in times of distress such value increases. Today Germany lives in a time of difficult struggle for foodstuffs and raw materials. Sufficient imports are conceivable only if there be a continued and lasting increase in our exports. Therefore, as a matter of course, our demand for colonies for our densely populated country will be put forward again and again.’[7]
Modern-day racial supremacist movements such as the Creativity Movement also envisage their role on a global basis, informing us that:
Instead of colonizing, White America is being colonized, not only by hordes of black niggers, but all the colored scum of the world. No longer is the White Man colonizing Africa further, but the Africans are colonizing America, the Asians are colonizing America, and the mulattos are colonizing America. Southern Florida is being overrun by the mulatto Cubans. Even that formerly redoubtable fortress of the British Empire, England, is rapidly being colonized by colored scum who are multiplying like rats in her midst. Even the beautiful blonde Swedes, of all people, are having hordes of black niggers shipped in and are not lifting a finger to stop them.
The real solution is for the White Man to adopt a sound, clear cut racial policy: The White Race must expand until it inhabits all the good land of this earth; it must consider all colored races its deadly enemies; it must stop giving them aid and assistance of any kind; it must crowd and shrink them from the face of the earth, as it did the Indian in America, only more so.
In order to survive at all, this must be our creed and our testament: it is either them, or us! It is the overwhelming objective of the Creativity Movement to make sure that the survival of the White Race upon the face of this earth will be secured for all time to come.
We, the White Race, must therefore learn over again the great historic lesson from our illustrious American forefathers. We must project this great productive surge of the White Race on a worldwide basis. We must again, in a planned and deliberate program, resume the colonization of the world which the White Race has pursued for the last several centuries in a more or less haphazard, but vigorous manner. Like the American pioneers, we, the White Race, must now make it our Manifest Destiny to win the world, and populate all the good lands thereof.[8]
There are two political trends that attract the label ‘far right’ and yet are not so clearly associated with the advocacy of imperialism. The first is what has been termed ‘Euronationalism’ — the modern movement comprising such organizations as Nick Griffin’s British National Party (BNP), the Italian Alleanza Nazionale, the Austrian Freiheitspartei Österreichs (FPÖ), the French Front National (FN), and similar organizations — which attempt to provide a political presence for nationalist ideas within the Establishment’s institutions by participating in the Establishment’s rigged electoral processes. The second comprises a ‘catch all’ group of leaders, often from a military background — characters such as Paraguay’s Stroessner, Chile’s Pinochet, Argentina’s Videla and Galtiere, and the Greek ‘colonels’ regime. The second group might also be said to include the South African leaders Malan, Strijdom, Verwoerd, Vorster and Botha.[9] These people have never been in a position to preach or practise an imperialism of their own. Their fault, in this area, rests in their failure to condemn, and their willingness to assist, to varying extents, the ferocious imperialism of the United States of America. The Establishment seems faintly embarrassed by these people, yet its record in first assisting them and then, at a convenient moment, permitting them to be removed and replaced by less embarrassing characters is consistent and unmistakable. Both the Euronationalists and the assorted pro-American strongmen are perhaps better classified as the tools of imperialism rather than as thoroughgoing imperialists.

3.2.2 Attitudes to the Establishment
I have suggested above that one of the core ideas of national-anarchism is that ‘”The system” (“the Establishment”), being a globalizing, imperialistic, and neo-imperialistic institution, is a bad thing that should be opposed.’ However, many organizations that are labelled ‘far right’ either exist as a result of support from, or themselves actively support, the Establishment. This has long been the case — the relationship between big business and the regimes of Mussolini and Hitler has been well documented,[10] as have similar relationships between big business and Franco in Spain.[11] Similarly, the willingness of the modern Euronationalists and their philosophical fellow travellers to court the Establishment is nothing short of spectacular. Thus whereas in 1994, the Italian newspaper, La Stampa, cited Gianfranco Fini (then in his radical days) declaring that Mussolini was ‘the greatest statesman of the century’, in January 2002, firmly established in mainstream politics, Fini completely disowned Mussolini and declared the greatest statesmen to be Einaudi, Alcide de Gasperi and Giovanni Giolitti, all of whom were anti-fascists![12] This was not a sudden departure. One year after his praise for Mussolini, on 6 November 1995, Fini paid a visit to the Israeli embassy in Rome where he told the Israeli ambassador, Iehuda Milu, of his ‘sense of dismay and pain, both personal and of the National Alliance, for the ferocious attack which killed Yitzak Rabin, a symbol of the Israeli population’s will for peace’.[13] In February 1999 he visited Auschwitz to send a message to the world that he was not, in fact, a Nazi. Condemning both France’s Le Pen and Austria’s Haider for their supposed extremism, he was subsequently forthright in his support for all things Israeli. This all paid off in due course when he was catapulted to a senior ministerial position in Silvio Berlusconi’s government and when, on 2 May 2002, the government of Israel terminated its policy of ‘no contact’ with Fini.[14] On 18 July 2002, Fini spoke out against a new anti-Semitism, ‘often masked by a violent criminalisation of Israel’.[15] On 8 October 2002, the Israeli Health Minister Nisim Dahan met him in Rome and announced that Israel would invite him for an official visit! In February 2003, Fini could be found complaining about ‘ideological anti-Americanism’.[16] The same month saw him demanding that the European Union should be described as a ‘community that shares a Judeo-Christian heritage as its fundamental values’.[17] These facts do not point to this ‘far right’ (as he is frequently described) Euronationalist being a staunch opponent of the established order. On the contrary, they suggest that he is a man who is prepared to bend over backwards to appease and defend the Establishment in exchange for a (fairly toothless) prestigious political job and a good salary. In short, he gives the impression of being a politician who has sold out, even if he has not been bought. 
Can he be written off, perhaps, as an aberration? Unfortunately not. In January 2003 Vladimir Zhirinovsky, one of Russia’s leading ‘far right’ politicians, visited Israel. The Israeli newspaperHa’aretz, had this to say about him:
Zhirinovsky has a past history of controversial anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli remarks. He denies being anti-Semitic, calling the accusation propaganda, and says he has changed his position on Israel and supports Jewish rights in Jerusalem.
Zhirinovsky is well known for his political zig-zags and recently sent Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a letter proposing that Russia, the United States and Israel set up an alliance to fight fundamentalist Muslim terrorism, which he sees as the greatest danger facing Russia.
Zhirinovsky said he was not bothered by Israeli Foreign Ministry instructions that government officials refrain from meeting him.[18]
Again, this turnaround was not an overnight thing. On 19 April 2001, Zhirinovsky refused to honour a moment of silence in the Duma in memory of Holocaust victims. Two months later he appears to have had a change of heart. On 22 June 2001, Zhirinovsky apparently sent the following letter to Rabbi Lazar, Chief Rabbi of Russia:
To: Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar
With each passing day, we are reminded more and more of the sufferings that our country endured from 1941-1945, the years of the Second World War.
No country suffered as a result of fascist aggression like the USSR did. And it was the Jewish people who lost the most on account of their ethnic and religious identity. Along with all civilized people, I mourn the six million Jews who died in ovens, or were shot in concentration camps or in the ghettoes.
The innocent victims of the Holocaust will remain forever in the memory of mankind.
Let me use this sad occasion to express my love to the Jewish people all over the world and my respect to all members of the Russian Jewish community, and to you, as its head representative. Your enlightening and devoted efforts enrich not only Jews, but also all people of the Russian Federation.
I can state with utter conviction as the leader of my party that our policies will always uphold the main principles of human rights, never tolerating anti-Semitism, which is an extreme manifestation of nationalism.
This is my straightforward and honest message to you, as you are one of the spiritual leaders of Russia. I absolutely disavow all previous published declarations, which were grossly misinterpreted by the mass media.
With honor and respect,
Vladimir Zhirinovsky
State Duma
Deputy Speaker
Liberal Democratic Party of Russia[19]
Conspiracy theories about Zhirinovsky’s background aside, the content of this letter, and of that to Sharon, conveys views that can hardly be described as anti-Establishment, and the apparentvolte face on Israel and Jewish matters suggests a decidedly Fini-esque desire to court popularity with the system. Similarly, Zhirinovsky’s proposal, in New York on 21 August 2002, that visas be abolished between Russia and the US, and that English be the second language in Russia, does not suggest a high level of opposition to the US imperialist regime.
The Austrian FPÖ, whose leadership has been making amazing contortions to prove how ‘moderate’ it is, was apparently helped to gain positions in government through financing from,inter alia, Reebok.[20] Its on-off leader, Joerg Haider, long the target of demonstrations for his supposedly ‘far-right’ views, has, like Fini and Zhirinovsky, been dancing wonderful pirouettes to show the Establishment that he’s really a good boy. Most spectacular of all was an article in Britain’s Daily Telegraph, in which he claimed to share ‘amazing similarities’ with the British Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair.[21] Indeed, he claims that his party ‘is arguably less tough on asylum seekers and immigrants than Labour and Blair’. (This is singularly ironic given Blair’s almost open-door policy to asylum seekers.) In a matter of a few years Fini has moved from describing veterans of the Waffen SS as ‘decent people of good character’ to announcing that his party ‘stands for equal opportunity, fairness, responsibility and trust’ and that ‘We have stood for a long time for all the values and ideas Tony Blair stands for, too.’ In an interview with Time Europe Haider further stated that his party:
for some years has been the strongest promoter of entering NATO. It’s a funny thing. We agree with that, clearly. There is no other way. You have no cold war, no Iron Curtain in Europe and this was the basis for our permanent neutrality. There is no function for neutrality now. But there is a need to develop a cooperative security system for Europe, together with the partners in the Atlantic partnership and that can only be NATO. That’s the only organization that really exists.[22]
Haider, like Fini and Zhirinovsky, may be ‘far right’ but he is not anti-Establishment, he is not anti-New World Order, and he is not opposed to American imperialism.
Jean-Marie Le Pen of France’s Front National has also been giving interviews to Israel’s Ha’aretz, telling them how moderate he is:
my influence in the party has always been decisive and I have never compromised on these things. In the movement itself, there was no mention of fascism or national-socialism. In my speeches, I always condemned communism, national-socialism and fascism. Incidentally, I define all of them as leftist movements that were spawned by the French Revolution. The only reason that our movement was pegged with the extremist label is because of our loyalty to the principle of `French Algeria’ and our opposition to the policy of separation from Algeria, which De Gaulle instituted.[23]
Front National foreign policy, at the time of writing this article (May 2003), is to oppose the New World Order. It proposes, however, to remain the ‘loyal friend’ of the United States without accepting its role as ‘policeman of the world’. As yet, therefore, the Front National has not completely sold out to the Establishment, although it is hardly proposing a radical alternative thereto (nor can it afford to do so if it is to achieve its goal of obtaining power through electoral means).
Has anyone else in the world of Euronationalism been giving interesting interviews to Ha’aretz? Well what a surprise! Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, has also chosen to tread the path of Zhirinovsky and Le Pen — on 30 April 2002 he too decided to grace the columns of the famous Israeli newspaper with his protestations of moderation and innocence. And the man who only a few years earlier was using the word ‘Holohoax’ in his publications had the following to tell them:
So therefore I understand, and I have changed my position over the years in the sense that I can see from the Jewish perspective, how Jews felt having been persecuted, and why they have a sense of insecurity and fear.
Now, I think that we are at a point where if white nationalists can understand and forgive that, and if similarly Jews can be less — I should be blunt — paranoid about any manifestation of white nationalism … it doesn’t mean that we want to exterminate you, any more then you want to exterminate us.
And it gets worse:
If both sides can give a little bit, then I think that particularly after the September 11 events, I believe that Jews have no choice: they either back the West and accept our right to preserve ourselves as the overall majority or the Jews will vanish, because the alternative is only West or Islam … And if the West goes down, so do the Jews.[24]
Griffin’s conversion is not merely a matter of words. An interesting Jewish Telegraphic Agency report even instances a BNP candidate campaigning (but not very successfully) in a Jewish area, attempting to gain Jewish votes on an anti-Islamic platform:
Postal worker Julian Leppert fished for Jewish votes by claiming that only the BNP was defending the Jewish community from supposed attacks by Muslims and asylum seekers. The tactic alarmed Jewish defense bodies and observers of the far-right scene, who say there is no evidence of such attacks and who considered the claims transparent pandering.[25]
Now let it be emphasized immediately that my criticism of these Euronationalists is not that they are being pro-Jewish (there are Jewish national-anarchists and Israel, if one leaves aside for a moment its murderous policies towards the Palestinians, could be seen as one model for a quasi national-anarchist type of intentional community) but rather that in their anxiety to prove that they are not, after all, Nazis, these Euronationalists are becoming indistinguishable from the Establishment’s pseudo-parties. In order to make themselves electable in a world where the mass media are tightly controlled by the Establishment, they have to make concession after concession, U-turn after U-turn, sellout after sellout. And increasingly this involves making statements of solidarity with the very Western imperialist powers that have essentially already destroyed the nations that these Euronationalists purport to wish to preserve. You can be Jewish and ferociously anti-Establishment; however, you cannot oppose the Establishment if you are falling over yourself to ingratiate yourself with it. And therein lies my quarrel with the Euronationalists.
A common pattern is apparent with these Euronationalists (and I include Zhirinovsky with the Euronationalists quite deliberately). For years their opponents have sidelined them effectively simply by restricting their access to the media and calling them Nazis. Now they have hit upon the idea of bending over backwards to show precisely how not Nazi they are and how much like the other mainstream parties they are. Distancing themselves from the Nazis may well be commendable but in taking their ‘we are normal’ act to such extremes they have ceased to challenge the Establishment in any way and have simply become part of it.
Insofar as a particular ‘far-right’ movement sees itself as part of the ‘Establishment’ rather than an enemy of the Establishment, insofar as it does compromising deals with big business and powerful interest groups in order to secure short-term and limited advantage, selling out on its anti-Establishment credentials and playing the whore for the American dollar, and insofar as it fails robustly to condemn and work against the Establishment, then it is clearly advocating a theoretical position that is different from the national-anarchist position. Throughout history, ‘far right’ organizations and leaders have indeed supped with the devil in this manner, and have become corrupt and vile as a result. This must be a serious factor distinguishing them from national-anarchists.
Again, let it be noted that exceptions exist.

3.2.3 The death of nations and nationalism
We live today in a post-nationalist world. The nations of old are becoming increasingly irrelevant. With a few minor exceptions they are little more than administrative zones of the New World Order. The ability of nation states to resist the dictates of the institutions of the New World Order is growing weaker with each year that passes — the financial rewards for compliance are too great, the financial sanctions for non-compliance are too great, and the means of resistance possessed by most nations have dwindled beyond the point where they pose any threat to the system. As Afghanistan and Iraq have discovered, Nuremberg notwithstanding, ‘waging aggressive war’ is not a war crime when the perpetrators are the defenders of the American empire.
Nationalism has for many years been marginalized, primarily through the use of the ‘gatekeeper’ function of the mass media (no party can succeed in a parliamentary democracy without sustained and significant access to the media and so, by denying nationalist political movements reasonable access to the media, they have, in all but a few countries, kept nationalists out of the parliamentary system). Increasingly, in Europe and in many other countries, nationalism is being criminalized. In England this is accomplished by declaring displays of nationalism ‘offensive’ and outlawing offensiveness with legislation such as the Public Order Act 1986. Elsewhere it is accomplished by outlawing ‘hate speech’, or the espousal of unconventional views about World War II, and so forth. The principal Churches and the education system all actively conduct anti-nationalist propaganda and generally do not permit contrary arguments to be heard. The Internet is being subjected to filters and to steps taken to ‘encourage’ service providers to take down sites critical of the Establishment. These factors are all emasculating nationalism as a political force, leaving the way clear for the globalizers and the big international financial players.
However, the factors that have been restricting nationalism for decades fade into insignificance when compared with a new factor: the death of the nation state itself. Many (but not all) of the world’s nationalist organizations are dedicated to the preservation of specific nation states: the British National Party to Britain, the Front National to France, the FPÖ to Austria, and so forth. Yet as the nation states that they are pledged to defend cease to exist — swallowed up into vast transnational institutions such as the European Union, the United Nations, NATO, and so forth — and in the face of all the propaganda that daily emanates from all the vast organs of the New World Order, can we seriously expect the spirit of nationalism to survive for even a few more generations? In a world where Britain, France, Austria no longer exist, can we really expect future generations to feel national loyalty towards Britain, France and Austria? Isn’t this rather like expecting the young people of today to feel national loyalty towards Wessex, Mercia, Gaul or the Roman Empire? Will it not be the case that, as nation states disappear, so national loyalty, and nationalism itself will disappear, with ‘nationalist’ organizations transforming themselves into harmless, pro-Establishment regionalist groupings (as the Euronationalists appear to be doing today)?
Nationalism, in the sense of the advocacy of the interests of specific nation states, is very much a doctrine of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. With the advent of globalization, however, the nation states upon which it relies seem doomed, thereby dooming the national sentiment and nationalism itself. Insofar as the ‘far right’ has hitched itself firmly to the mast of the sinking ship of nationalism, so the ‘far right’ is a lost cause. Modern nationalism is like a grotesque King Canute, sternly commanding the waves to cease advancing, unshakeable in the conviction that the power of words alone will bring about a change in the inevitable.
If national-anarchism is to be a relevant force in the world in years to come, it cannot allow itself to decline with the outmoded nationalism of the ‘far right’. It must identify itself not with the struggle to preserve existing nation states — a struggle that has, on the whole, been decisively lost — but rather with the struggle to bring about alternatives to the globalized system — the struggle for the creation of new autonomous communities and homelands as a contrary tendency to the globalization of the New World Order. This is the struggle of the future — a struggle that, in 2003, has not even really begun. Nationalism is dead; long live post-nationalism!

3.2.4 Different ‘end products’
National-anarchists and ‘the far right’ seem, on the whole, to be working towards different, and to an extent incompatible, ends. I am conscious that this is a generalization as both ‘national-anarchists’ and ‘the far right’ are diverse groups and, as such, their supporters may well aspire to a wide variety of different ‘ends’, some of which are more compatible than others. Nevertheless it remains broadly true that, on the whole and with some exceptions:

1. ‘The far right’ seeks to preserve or enhance existing nation states, or to develop great empires, whereas national-anarchists tend to regard existing nation states as lost causes and empires as both undesirable and vulnerable to subversion, preferring instead to think in terms of smaller, independent communities doing their own thing.

2. The ‘far right’ often seeks to impose some sort of ideology or culture or way of life on a large group of people whereas national-anarchists make no prescriptions about how communities should run their affairs — it is for each community to decide. National-anarchism is thus far lessideological than many ‘far-right’ movements.

3. ‘Far-right’ movements, having accepted and internalized the Establishment’s ‘left-right political spectrum’ propaganda, tend to show a marked hostility to and intolerance of ideas, movements, and individuals that have attracted the label ‘left wing’. National-anarchists, by contrast, are far more serious about rejecting the ‘left-right’ nonsense as simply a trick by the Establishment — an attempt at ‘divide and rule’. Accordingly, whereas the ‘end visions’ of many ‘far right’ movements tend to be largely defined by rejection of, and hostility towards, all that has been labelled ‘left’, this is not the case with national-anarchists.

These different end products imply different strategies and fundamentally different approaches to politics. Whereas the ‘far right’ is obliged to engage in mass propaganda and mass recruitment in order to pursue its objectives — strategies for which it is ill equipped in terms of manpower and other resources — the national-anarchists are able to use more of a tracking down and sifting outprocess in order to attract a far smaller number of suitably motivated people. We hence have a far more manageable task ahead of us.
4. Practical Problems with the ‘Far Right’

4.1 Problematic peripheral beliefs

I have argued above that a core national-anarchist objective is that of alliance formation — of bringing together those who are against the system. However, as I have pointed out elsewhere, opponents of the Establishment can be divided into sectarians and non-sectarians:
Non-sectarians will seek to form a broad alliance against the Establishment. They will work alongside anyone with whom they can reach broad agreement on strategy. They will minimize the significance of theoretical differences and concentrate on what unites — on opposition to the Establishment — rather than what divides.
Sectarians will oppose the Establishment from a narrow theoretical position. They tend to work alongside those who share their own theoretical position and to oppose anti-Establishment activists whose theoretical positions diverge from their own. They tend to emphasize and play up the significance of theoretical differences and concentrate on what divides the enemies of the Establishment rather than the common cause. They easily serve as unwitting tools of the Establishment. [26]
I further argued that the sectarianism or non-sectarianism of anti-Establishment activists determines how they can be managed.[27] Specifically, I suggested that:
Generally speaking, the principle that should be employed should be to work towards a grand alliance of non-sectarian activists but a series of small, often single-issue alliances with sectarians. These small alliances might even be as limited as non-aggression agreements or agreements to discuss differences.
One practical difficulty in dealing with those from the ‘far right’ is that they are often sectarian dogmatists with strongly held beliefs and these beliefs tend to conflict starkly and even violently with those of other potentially useful allies of national-anarchism. For example, ferocious anti-communism might indeed have been a commendable quality up until the late 1980s, when the Soviet Union was a major imperialist power striving for the conquest of the entire world; however, in the early twenty-first century when the United States is the sole remaining imperialist power and is in the process of consolidating its conquest of the entire world, and when certain communists (those who are not acting as henchmen for the New World Order) are fighting desperately against the Establishment, such a broad anti-communism can cause serious strategic problems. In particular, it can force national-anarchists to choose between either communists or‘far-right’ — a choice that, of course, simply reinforces the Establishment ‘left/right’ divide-and-rule strategy. To avoid this, the only possible response is to announce both to the ‘far right’ and to the communists that ‘we are neither “left” nor “right”; we are anti-Establishment and we will work with anyone who is against the Establishment’.
It is not only the anti-communism of the ‘far right’ that can cause conflicts. Frequently, but again not invariably, ‘far right’ activists tend to have strongly held religious beliefs. To be sure, they vary widely. Some are Catholics, others Protestants, some Christian Identity, yet others are Odinists, and some subscribe to very odd notions indeed. The potential here for conflicts is self-evident. An effective national-anarchist needs to be able to show respect for the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of potential allies, even when that national-anarchist finds those beliefs to be distasteful or bizarre.
Similar problems can sometimes arise with issues of race and ethnicity. For example, one publication of the Creativity Movement informs its readers that:
The racial program of the Creativity Movement therefore, is clearly spelled out: expand the White Race, shrink the coloreds. This must be our program for all time, not only in America but on a global basis.[28]
This approach (quite apart from its imperialism) is hardly conducive to the construction of alliances with non-white people — something that is absolutely vital in constructing a viable alternative to the New World Order in a world where, as the Creativity Movement is at pains to inform potential supporters, most people are not white.
Insofar as members of the ‘far right’ can prevent their peripheral beliefs from becoming a serious liability to the national-anarchist project then we can work with them. However, insofar as these beliefs are asserted in a dogmatic or provocative manner and render it difficult to proceed with alliance formation, they present a clear practical barrier to co-operation between national-anarchists and those members of the ‘far right’ who behave in this fashion. That problematic peripheral beliefs are widespread among ‘far right’ adherents, and that the dogmatic and confrontational assertion of such beliefs is equally widespread is itself a powerful reason for distinguishing national-anarchism from the ‘far right’.

4.2 Motivation and other personality considerations

It might be observed that, for most adherents of movements that are tarnished with the label ‘far right’, politics is a matter of preference rather than passion. Whereas there is much rhetoric about the need to fight and resist, and the need for activism generally, it is frequently true to say that these people, with a few exceptions, do not appear to be highly motivated. They are generally terrified of losing employment or of incurring physical or financial harm, and are very quick indeed to run to their women and children for protection, citing the ubiquitous excuse of the ‘need to protect my family’ at every opportunity as a reason for not complying whenever requested to do anything at all. Whereas Islamic fundamentalists are willing to blow themselves to pieces in heroic acts of self-sacrifice and revolutionary communists are prepared to endure all sorts of hardships and repression, the bulk of ‘far right’ supporters, in my extensive experience of such people, find it extremely difficult nowadays to motivate themselves even to distribute a few legal leaflets (to be sure, it happens, but — and this is the crucial point — not to any significant extent, and certainly not to a sufficient extent).
Why does this lack of motivation occur? We can only speculate. There appear to be four factors:the gatekeeper function of the mediafear of persecutioninsufficient pain and an insufficiently inspiring cause.
There is, in the West generally but especially in Britain and the United States, a particularly savage campaign of propaganda, demonizing nationalism and glorifying internationalism, multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism. This campaign depicts the ‘far right’ as mindless thugs and continually dehumanizes, demonizes, criminalizes and medicalizes ‘far right’ views, or caricatures of those views. The strikingly effective policy of denying the ‘far right’ any significant or sustained access to the mass media, enforced by journalists’ unions,[29] media bosses,[30] and by numerous ordinary journalists who have been educated in a culture where the ‘far right’ has been demonized, together with all those who are fearful of criminal sanctions should they infringe laws against publishing ‘offensive’ or otherwise criminal material, has meant that the ‘far right’ has been utterly unable to respond effectively to the sustained campaign against it, much less present an attractive and sustained propaganda campaign to attract supporters into its ranks.
Accordingly, whereas there might indeed be a great deal of public support for specific ‘far right’ policies, support for the ‘far right’ itself has long been very limited. Only in the form of Euronationalism, which involves massive compromise with the Establishment, is the ‘far right’ permitted a limited entry into the media and thus into mainstream politics. Where the ‘far right’ succeeds in bypassing the media gatekeepers, as has been the case to a limited extent, for example, in Italy, Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, it does indeed manage to attract talented individuals who are willing to devote considerable resources and much energy to the pursuit of politics. However, where the media gatekeepers are not bypassed then support is generally, but not invariably, limited to poor quality and largely inactive individuals. One can only assume that higher quality individuals do not wish to waste their time on what is continually presented to them as a rather unattractive lost cause.
It is certainly the case that people are reluctant to become involved with ‘far right’ movements because such involvement would expose them to severe social sanctions, loss of employment and business opportunities, violence and harassment through the criminal and civil courts. This is not the place to detail the truly terrifying range of intimidatory tactics used against the ‘far right’, chief among them being the threat of loss of employment, which can be guaranteed to reduce otherwise steadfast men and women to inactivity (especially if they have children to support). Trade unions offer them very little protection (indeed, they are frequently at the forefront of the persecution) and legal action is expensive and uncertain, even where it is possible.
But I do not think that it is the whole story. As I write these words, the people of Palestine and Nepal are risking their very lives in the face of far greater repression and brutality than that experienced by the ‘far right’ in Europe and America. Two factors are crucial here. First, the people of Palestine and Nepal are hurting far more than the European and American ‘far right’. The poverty and oppression experienced by these people is such that the perceived benefit of resistance justifies the perceived cost, even though the perceived cost is higher than that experienced by the European and American ‘far right’. The European and American ‘far right’ are indeed witnessing the destruction of much that they hold dear, but they are not being slaughtered in their thousands, they are not witnessing the slaughter of their families by American-backed governments, they are not generally going hungry. On the contrary, if they behave themselves and keep their heads down then they can enjoy a fine lifestyle. So they have a powerful incentive to behave themselves and keep their heads down! Secondly, Islam and communism arguably provide a greater level of inspiration than do ‘far right’ groups. The fruits of martyrdom or the vision, however questionable, of a society free from most of the ills of today’s world, form powerful motivators. The call to fight a losing battle to preserve the finer aspects of life against a vastly more powerful foe does not appear to have the same motivational power.
Elements of the ‘far right’ might indeed benefit greatly from a national-anarchist setup, not least because it would acknowledge their right to their own homelands and to run those homelands as they wish. However, these people nowadays generally lack the motivation to be at the forefront of, or even contribute in a substantial way to, a successful revolutionary movement.

4.3 Subversion by the Establishment

The tendency for many ‘far-right’ organizations, particularly those of a Euronationalist mindset, to become involved in electoral politics, and the tendency for them to wish to court ‘respectability’ (some examples of which I have documented above) makes them sitting ducks for subversion by enemy agencies, particularly the agents of the state. This pressure comes from two principal directions: 
(a) Pressure from the media, the legal system, mainstream politicians and ‘opinion formers’, and internal infiltrators, to compromise on both strategy and policy, so that their organizations are essentially co-opted to serve the Establishment rather than the enemies of the Establishment. I have already given numerous examples of this. 
(b) Infiltration by those who wish to disrupt and damage. The recent infiltration of the German National Democratic Party (NPD), wherein a court case revealed that one in seven of that party’s leadership at the time was planted by the intelligence services, exemplifies this.[31] Given this level of infiltration at such a high level, these movements are evidently quite incapable of functioning as a serious alternative to the Establishment.

4.4 Unreliability

A feature of the so-called ‘far right’ is its tendency to splinter into numerous small groups that spend vast amounts of time fighting each other, thus enabling their opponents to keep them from gaining any of their objectives. This might well be a direct result of the dogmatism and sectarianism that, as discussed above, are hallmarks of the ‘far right’. A particularly gruesome example of this was the situation that pertained in South Africa around the final years of white minority rule, when a truly bewildering variety of ‘far right’ organizations competed for the time and resources of ‘far right’ Afrikaners, rising and falling in an ever-shifting pattern of squabbles and alliances. The Conservative Party, the Freedom Front, the Freedom Party, the Boerestaat Party, the Herstigte Nasionale Party, the Afrikaner Volksfront, the Afrikaner Volksunie, the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, the Boereweerstandsbeweging, the Afrikaner Eenheidsbeweging, Blanke Veiligheid — not to mention the National Party itself, which retained the support of many on the ‘far right’ by appealing to sheer loyalty as it set itself firmly on a path diametrically opposed to that which it had pursued for almost half a century. The Afrikaner ‘far right’ is perhaps an extreme example but it illustrates a tendency that is equally marked elsewhere, even if it does not lead to such a profusion of organizations in other lands.
These volatile people who, at the slightest provocation, go off in a tantrum are hardly the most reliable of allies. Every time they decide to ‘try something new’ they pose a major security risk to their former allies. They cause enormous trouble, expense and wasted effort through their lack of constancy. For national-anarchists to seek to present themselves as yet another far-right faction is to become drawn into this seething cauldron of squabbles and petty rivalries quite unnecessarily, submerging their unique contributions to politics by placing them alongside the grotesque freak show of ‘far rightdom’ as it parades before the bemused eyes of the people.

4.5 Failure to appreciate the contributions of the so-called ‘left’

The tendency of ‘far right’ organizations to accept the Establishment’s ‘left-right’ analysis of politics leads their supporters to be overly dismissive of thinkers labelled ‘left wing’ whose ideas, in fact, are of great importance to any anti-Establishment struggle. I would like to give a few brief examples of how the ideas of some on the Marxist and anarchist so-called ‘left’ are of potentially vast importance to national-anarchists.

4.5.1 Antonio Gramsci
Antonio Gramsci provided numerous insights into the more underhand methods used by the Establishment (whom he equates, rather innocently, with capitalists) in order to influence events. His cynicism regarding political parties is particularly noteworthy: ‘It is difficult to deny that all political parties (those of subordinate as well as ruling groups) also carry out a policing function — that is to say, the function of safeguarding a certain political and legal order.’ He continued further on:
The problem arises of whether the great industrialists have a permanent political party of their own. It seems to me that the reply must be in the negative. The great industrialists utilise all the existing parties turn by turn, but they do not have their own party. This does not mean that they are in any way ‘agnostic’ or ‘apolitical’. Their interest is in a determinate balance of forces, which they obtain precisely by using their resources to reinforce one party or another in turn from the varied political checkerboard (with the exception, needless to say, only of the enemy party, whose reinforcement cannot be assisted even as a tactical move).[32]
This is not a unique insight — Oswald Spengler, much beloved by the ‘far right’, observed:
… powerful figures … control, through money, all the intellectual machinery of speech and script, and are able, on the one hand, to guide the individual’s opinions as they please above the parties, and, on the other, through their patronage, influence and legislation, to create a firm body of whole-hearted supporters … which excludes the rest and induces in it a vote-apathy which at the last it cannot shake off even for the great crises.[33]
Gramsci was only too keenly aware of the gatekeeper function of the mass media in the so-called ‘democracies’ of the West and the manner in which the media reduced the entire electoral procedure to a complete farce:
The industrial and landowning bourgeoisie possesses thousands and thousands of newspapers and printing-presses: all the paper-mills are at its disposal. The proletarians can only print very few newspapers with their own resources… .
The industrial and landowning bourgeoisie possesses tens of thousands of meeting-halls, theatres and cinemas, where it can assemble its supporters peacefully and carry out all the propaganda it deems useful. But the premises of the working class, the Chambers of Labour and the Socialist and Communist sections, have been burned down in their tens and their hundreds. Even the streets are denied to the popular masses: the natural place where the proletariat can assemble without cost has become a field for surprise-attacks and ambushes… .
What value could a Parliament elected in such conditions have? How could it be seen as representing the ‘free’ will of the nation?[34]
He was later to note how this ‘election’ mechanism effectively stifled radical resistance:
Once it had broken the first attempts by the proletariat and the peasantry to rise up against the State, the strengthened Italian bourgeoisie was able to adopt the external methods of democracy to impede the progress of the working-class movement.[35]
Gramsci has documented some of the subtle tactics used by the Establishment to manipulate ‘democratic’ processes such as referendums, such as the use of compromising ‘reformists’ to deflate radical participation:
So thus it is that the mandarins seek by every means to prevent the broad masses from participating in discussion. The assemblies are rigged: when a critic speaks, the little groups of reformists resort to systematic heckling; but when a reformist takes the floor, bursts of applause punctuate his speech. The reformists deliver interminable orations, seek to divert attention from the main problems, provoke incidents, etc., etc. When the moment comes for discussion, the assembly has dwindled in size, because many have grown impatient and decamped. Those who have remained feel suffocated, bewildered, stupefied by all the manoeuvres; so the reformists win a majority.[36]
Gramsci was alert to the divide-and-rule tactics used by the Establishment. For instance, he noted the manner in which the Establishment would use compromises in order to form alliances with particular factions that might otherwise have opposed it:
The intrinsic weakness of capitalism compels the industrial class to adopt expedients to guarantee its control over the country’s economy. These expedients are basically nothing more than a system of economic compromises between a part of the industrialists and a part of the agricultural classes, specifically the big landowners …
Just as it does not naturally control the entire economy, so too the industrial class does not succeed in organizing single-handed the whole of society and the State. The construction of a national State is only made possible for it by the exploitation of factors of international politics (so-called Risorgimento). Its reinforcement and defence necessitate a compromise with the classes upon which industry exercises a limited hegemony: in particular, the landowners and petty bourgeoisie …[37]
This may be seen as part of a general tendency in the work of Gramsci to regard politics as far more than a purely party matter. He emphasized the importance of the cultural sphere as an arena for revolutionary contestation:
The proletarian revolution … presupposes the formation of a new set of standards, a new psychology, new ways of feeling, thinking and living that must be specific to the working class, that must be created by it, that will become ‘dominant’ when the working class becomes the dominant class … Together with the problem of gaining political and economic power, the proletariat must also face the problem of winning intellectual power. Just as it has thought to organize itself politically and economically, it must also think about organizing itself culturally …[38]
We know that the proletariat’s struggle against capitalism is waged on three fronts: the economic, the political and the ideological … The economic struggle cannot be separated from the political struggle, nor can either of them be separated from the ideological struggle.[39]
In Gramsci’s prison writings these themes develop with the notion of ‘hegemony’ — the idea that a subordinate group can be induced to give consent to leadership by a dominant group.
The realization of a hegemonic apparatus, in so far as it creates a new ideological terrain, determines a reform of consciousness and of methods of knowledge …[40]
This is functional for the dominant group insofar as it permits it to govern through alliances that would not be possible were it to attempt to establish dominance through force alone:
If the union of two forces is necessary in order to defeat a third, a recourse to arms and coercion (even supposing that these are available) can be nothing more than a methodological hypothesis; the only concrete possibility is compromise. Force can be employed against enemies, but not against a part of one’s own side which one wishes rapidly to assimilate, and whose ‘good will’ and enthusiasm one needs.[41]
However, what’s good for the goose can be good for the gander, as the saying goes, and Gramsci saw that the ‘proletariat’ also had the potential to establish hegemony:

The Turin communists posed concretely the question of the ‘hegemony of the proletariat’: i.e. of the social basis of the proletarian dictatorship and of the workers’ State. The proletariat can become the leading [dirigente] and the dominant class to the extent that it succeeds in creating a system of class alliances which allows it to mobilize the majority of the working population against capitalism and the bourgeois State.[42][/quote]

For Gramsci, the resulting political conflict is far more than a simple matter of electioneering or overthrowing the government:
These situations of conflict between ‘represented and representatives’ reverberate out from the terrain of the parties (the party organizations properly speaking, the parliamentary-electoral field, newspaper organization) throughout the state organism, reinforcing the relative power of the bureaucracy (civil and military), of high finance, of the Church, and generally of all bodies relatively independent of the fluctuations of public opinion. How are they created in the first place? In every country the process is different, although the content is the same. And the content is the crisis of the ruling class’s hegemony, which occurs either because the ruling class has failed in some major political undertaking for which it has requested, or forcibly extracted, the consent of the broad masses (war, for example), or because huge masses (especially of peasants and petty-bourgeois intellectuals) have passed suddenly from a state of political passivity to a certain activity, and put forward demands which taken together, albeit not organically formulated, add up to a revolution. A ‘crisis of authority’ is spoken of: this is precisely the crisis of hegemony, or crisis of the state as a whole.[43]
Gramsci draws parallels between war in the military field and war in the political field, and notes specific tactics to employ, for example:
Specific necessities can be deduced from this for any cultural movement which aimed to replace common sense and old conceptions of the world in general:
1. Never to tire of repeating its own arguments (though offering literary variation of form): repetition is the best didactic means for working on the popular mentality.
2. To work incessantly to raise the intellectual level of ever-growing strata of the populace, in other words, to give a personality to the amorphous mass element. This means working to produce elites of intellectuals of a new type which arise directly out of the masses, but remain in contact with them to become, as it were, the whalebone in the corset.[44]
We can, of course, criticize Gramsci extensively. When there is a single, global imperial government that has reduced the nations of the world to mere administrative zones, and has consolidated its economic power, its military power and its domination of the cultural sphere to the point that it is unassailable, is it really sensible to think in terms of engaging in a contest for hegemonic dominance with such a power? Would it not be more sensible, under these current circumstances, to try instead to establish small intentional communities that are free from that hegemonic power? And would it not be more sensible to confine one’s dreams of counter-hegemony to such communities, rather than seeking to engage in large-scale confrontation with the hegemony of the Establishment worldwide?

Nevertheless, Gramsci’s work is important in highlighting the range of tactics used against the opponents of the Establishment and the futility of attempting to gain victories purely in the electoral or governmental sphere. It is important in highlighting the threefold political, economic and ideological nature of political contestation. It is important in highlighting the role of culture in political contestation.

These points are of incalculable importance when considering the strategy of any radical movement. They are certainly of huge importance to national-anarchists. And yet do we see ‘far right’ individuals and movements rushing to learn from this body of theory? Their implacable a priori hostility to Marxist theory makes this most unlikely.

4.5.2 Louis Althusser
As an elaboration of these comments on Gramsci it is perhaps useful to touch very briefly here on Louis Althusser’s distinction between two mechanisms by which hegemony is asserted: the ‘ideological state apparatus’ (law, religion, family, school, art, media, literature) and the ‘repressive state apparatus’ (army, police, prisons, law courts).[45] The importance attributed to the ideological state apparatus lies in the manner in which it reflects events in a way that suits dominant ideas, thereby securing consent for the ruling order.
An awareness of the nature and importance of an ideological state apparatus, and of the consequent need for strategies to counter its influence, can only be of the utmost importance to the practical politician seeking effectively to oppose the Establishment. It is thus of central importance to national-anarchists.
However, Althusser was a Marxist and therefore the ‘far right’ does not want to know.

4.5.3 Enver Hoxha
Hoxha was a very different sort of Marxist. A hard-line Stalinist, and ruler of Albania for more than four decades, he represents much of what the ‘far right’ purports to loathe. Ironically, however, his writings, and his ultimately ill-fated attempts to build a homeland quite independent of external powers (which he denounced, correctly, as imperialist) present national-anarchists with valuable material from which they can learn.
It is important to note that unlike almost all other Marxist leaders, Hoxha did not merely condemn Western imperialism. He alone, in his later years, had the courage to condemn all imperialisms, including those of China and the Soviet Union.
Today big forces, representatives of darkness, of the enslavement and exploitation of the proletariat and the peoples — American imperialism and its agencies, Soviet social-imperialism, Chinese social-imperialism, the big bourgeoisie and reaction, have risen against and are fighting Marxism-Leninism. Such counterrevolutionary ideological currents as social-democracy, modern revisionism and many other counterrevolutionary currents have also risen against our revolutionary ideology.[46]
The consistent anti-imperialism of Hoxha’s later years appears to have arisen not so much from purely theoretical considerations as from bitter experience. He had been betrayed first by the Yugoslavs, then by the Soviets, and finally by the Chinese. At this point he resolved to seal the borders of his country and take the path of isolation and self-sufficiency.
In his book The Superpowers, a political diary, Hoxha wrote compellingly of his growing disillusionment with Khrushchev during the Soviet leader’s visit to Albania:

We went to see the orange plantation at Stjar. We visited Butrint …
While we were looking at the beauties of Butrint, Khrushchev … called Malinovsky to him and I heard his whisper, ‘What a marvellous place! Here is an ideal base where our submarines can be built … From here we could paralyse and attack everything.’
I was astonished at how he could make such a calculation ‘without consulting the owners’, as our people say …


When we were looking out to sea from the veranda of the villa at Uji i Ftohte … where we were resting, Khrushchev in an undertone discussed with Malinovsky as he did yesterday in Butrint, ‘What a secure bay at the foot of these mountains! With a powerful fleet stationed here we have the whole Mediterranean from the Bosporus to Gibraltar in our hands!’
What terrible plans this man, who talks so much about peace, is hatching up! …[47]
He continues in a subsequent entry:
From the military stand-point Khrushchev saw Albania as a country of great strategic importance for the Mediterranean, which must serve the Soviet Union as a base for the deployment of the Soviet navy and the launching of Soviet missiles. (At Butrint and Vlora as I have written, he made open allusions to such a thing.)
These heavily camouflaged expressions and opinions, expressed sometimes jokingly and sometimes seriously, do not seem to me to be very friendly or internationalist towards our country and people and other peoples. Time will confirm whether or not these impressions of mine are accurate.[48]
The following pages, detailing the deterioration in relations between Hoxha and Khrushchev, make fascinating reading. An entry for August 1960 reads:
More and more each day Khrushchev and his colleagues are displaying the hostility which they have long nurtured towards us. Because of the catastrophic drought this year, some time ago we sought grain from the Soviets, Bulgarians and Rumanians. The Soviets have replied that they will supply only one fifth of the quantity we asked for, and even this after November. This stand of theirs means pressure on us
The sharp-eyed reader will no doubt draw parallels between this use of economic pressure by the Soviet Union and an identical approach applied by America to small states that do not do its bidding in the modern age.
When the break came, it came in the form of a blistering speech delivered by Hoxha at a top-level international meeting of communists in Moscow on 16 November 1960. The speech began mildly enough with, among other things, a denunciation of imperialism:
We want peace, while imperialism does not want peace and is preparing for a third world war. We must fight with all our might to avert a world war and to bring about the triumph in the world of a just and democratic peace. This will come about when imperialism will have been forced to disarm. Imperialism will not disarm of its own free will. To believe anything of the kind is merely to deceive oneself and others. Therefore we should confront imperialism with the colossal economic, military, moral, political and ideological strength of the socialist camp, as well as with the combined strength of the peoples throughout the world. We should sabotage by every means the war which the imperialists are preparing …
We hold the view that US-led imperialism should be mercilessly exposed politically and ideologically. At no time should we permit flattery, prettification or softness towards imperialism. No concessions of principle should be made to imperialism. Tactics and compromises on our part should help our cause not that of the enemy.[49]
Another little barb appeared moments later:
Traitors to Marxism-Leninism, agents of imperialism and intriguers like Josif Broz Tito, try in a thousand ways, by hatching up diabolic schemes like the creation of a third force, to mislead these people and the newly-set up states, to detach them from their natural allies, to hitch them up to U.S. imperialism. We should exert all our efforts to defeat the schemes of these lackeys of imperialism.
Within minutes he was launching a full-frontal verbal attack:
Comrade Kozlov has even put to us, Albanians, these alternatives: either coexistence, as he conceives it, or an atomic bomb from the imperialists, which will turn Albania into a heap of ashes and leave no Albanian alive. Until now, no representative of U.S. imperialism has made such an atomic threat against the Albanian people. But here it is and from a member of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and to whom? To a small heroic country, to a people who have fought, through centuries, against savage and innumerable enemies and who have never bent the knee, to a small country and to a people who have fought with unprecedented heroism against the Hitlerites and Italian fascists, to a people who are bound like flesh to bone to the glorious Soviet Union, to a party which abides loyally, consistently and to the last by Marxism-Leninism and by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. But comrade Frol Koslov, you have made a mistake in the address, you cannot frighten us into yielding to your wrongly calculated wishes and we never confound the glorious Party of Lenin with you who behave so badly, with such shamelessness, towards the Albanian people and towards the Party of Labor of Albania. The Party of Labor of Albania will strive for and support all the correct and peaceful proposals of the Soviet Union and other countries of the socialist camp as well as of the other peace-loving countries.
The whole Party of Labor of Albania holds the unanimous view that the Soviet comrades made a grave mistake at Bucharest, by unjustly condemning the Chinese Communist Party for having, allegedly, deviated from Marxism-Leninism, for having, allegedly, violated and abandoned the 1957 Moscow Declaration. They have accused the Chinese Communist Party of being ‘dogmatic’, ‘sectarian’, of being ‘in favor of war’, of being ‘opposed to peaceful co-existence’, of ‘wanting a privileged position in the camp and in the international communist movement’, etc.
The Soviet comrades made a grave mistake also when, taking advantage of the great love and trust which the communists have for the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, they tried to impose their incorrect views towards the Chinese Communist Party on the other communist and workers’ parties.
Right from the start, when the Soviet comrades began their feverish and impermissible work of inveigling the comrades of our delegation in Bucharest, it became clear to the Party of Labor of Albania that the Soviet comrades, resorting to groundless arguments and pressure, wished to lead the delegation of the Party of Labor of Albania into the trap they had prepared, to bring them into line with the distorted views of the Soviet comrades.
What was of importance to comrade Khrushchev, (and comrade Andropov said as much to comrade Hysni Kapo) was whether we would ‘line up with Soviet side or not’. Comrade Khrushchev expressed this opinion in other ways also, in his interjections against our Party at the Bucharest meeting.
Why did comrade Khrushchev and the other Soviet comrades make such great haste to accuse the Chinese Communist Party groundlessly and without facts? Is it permissible for communists and, especially for the principal leaders of so great and glorious a party as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, to perpetrate such an ugly act? Let them answer this question themselves, but the Party of Labor of Albania also has the full right to express its opinion on the matter.
The Hungarian counter-revolution occurred but matters were hushed up. Why this tactics of hushing things up when they are not to their advantage, while for things which are to their advantage, the Soviet comrades not only call meetings like that of Bucharest but do their utmost to force on others the view that ‘China is in opposition to the line of all the communist and workers’ parties of the world?’

But this stand of our Party did not please the leading comrades of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and this we very soon felt. Immediately following the Bucharest meeting, an unexpected, unprincipled attack was launched, brutal intervention and all-round pressure was undertaken against our Party and its Central Committee. The attack was begun by comrade Khrushchev in Bucharest and was continued by comrade Kozlov in Moscow. The comrades of our Political Bureau who happened to pass through Moscow were worked upon with a view to turning them against the leadership of our Party, putting forward that ‘the leadership of the Party of Labor of Albania had betrayed the friendship with the Soviet Union’, that ‘the line pursued by the leadership of the Party of Labor of Albania is characterized by “zig-zags”’, that ‘Albania must decide to go either with the 200 millions (with the Soviet Union) or with the 650 millions (with People’s China)’ and finally that ‘an isolated Albania is in danger, for it would take only one atomic bomb dropped by the Americans to wipe out Albania and all its population completely’, and other threats of the kind. It is absolutely clear that the aim was to sow discord in the leadership of our Party, to remove from the leadership of the Party of Labor of Albania those elements who, the Soviet leaders thought, stood in the way of their crooked and dishonest undertakings. 
What came out of this divisive work was that comrade Liri Belishova, Member of the PoliticaI Bureau of the Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania, capitulated to the cajolery of the Soviet leaders, to their blackmail and intimidation and took a stand in open opposition to the line of her Party.[/quote]

In October this year, Comrade Khrushchev declared solemnly to the Chinese comrades, ‘We will treat Albania like Yugoslavia’. We say this at this meeting of international communism so that all may see how far things have gone and what attitude is being maintained towards a small socialist country. What ‘crime’ has the Party of Labor of Albania committed for our country to be treated like Tito’s Yugoslavia? Have we by any chance betrayed Marxism-Leninism as Tito’s clique has done? …
We are obliged to inform this meeting that the Soviet leaders have in fact passed from threats to treating Albania in the same way as Titoite Yugoslavia, to concrete acts. This year our country has suffered many natural calamities. There was a big earthquake, the flood in October and, especially, the drought which was terrible, with not a drop of rain for 120 days in succession. Nearly all the grain was lost. The people were threatened with starvation. The very limited reserves were consumed. Our Government urgently sought to buy grain from the Soviet Union, explaining the very critical situation we were faced with. This happened after the Bucharest Meeting. We waited 45 days for a reply from the Soviet Government while we had only 15 days bread for the people. After forty-five days and after repeated official requests, the Soviet Government, instead of 50,000 tons, accorded us only 10,000 tons, that is, enough to last us 15 days, and this grain was to be delivered during the months of September and October. This was open pressure on our Party to submit to the wishes of the Soviet comrades.
But comrade Khrushchev’s incorrect, unprincipled and hostile stand towards our Party and its leadership did not stop there. The other Yugoslav agent and traitor to the Party of Labor of Albania and to the Albanian people, Panajot Plaku, fled to Yugoslavia and placed himself in the service of the Yugoslavs. He organized the hostile broadcasts from the so-called ‘Socialist Albania’ radio station. This traitor wrote to bandit Tito and comrade Khrushchev asking the latter to use his authority to eliminate the leadership of Albania headed by Enver Hoxha under the pretext that we were ‘anti-Marxists and Stalinists’. Far from being indignant at the letter of this traitor, comrade Khrushchev expressed the opinion that Panajot Plaku could return to Albania on condition that we do nothing to him, or he could find political asylum in the Soviet Union. We felt as if the walls of the Kremlin had dropped on our heads, for we could never imagine that the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union could go so far as to support Tito’s agents and traitors to our Party against our Party and our people.
And so it continued.
After the break with the Soviet Union, Albania drew close to the Chinese regime. However, as China behaved in an increasingly arrogant, opportunistic and imperialistic manner, eventually openly seeking rapprochement with the Americans, Hoxha became increasingly ill at ease with them. The events leading to the deterioration of this relationship are outlined in Imperialism and the Revolution, which contains a lengthy list of complaints against the Chinese regime. For example:
The events and facts are demonstrating ever more clearly that China is sinking deeper and deeper into revisionism, capitalism and imperialism. On this road, it is working to attain a series of strategic objectives, on a national and international level.
On a national level, Chinese social-imperialism has set itself the task of abolishing any measlure of a socialist character which may have been taken after liberation, and building in the country a capitalist system in the base and the superstructure, of making China a great capitalist power by the end of this century through the implemeritation of the so-called ‘four modernizations’, of industry agriculture, the army and science …[50]
He continued:
In their policy of turning China into a superpower, the Chinese leaders aim to make economic and military gains from US imperialism, as well as from the developed capitalist countries which are allies of the United States of America.
This policy pursued by China has aroused keen interest in the capitalist world, especially on the part of US imperialism, which sees in this policy of China a great support for its strategy of maintaining capitalism and imperialism, strengthening neo-colonialism, putting down revolutions and strangling socialism, as well as of weakening its rival, the Soviet Union.
As Carter has declared, US imperialism wants to collaborate closely with the Chinese …
After denouncing Chinese imperialist ambitions towards Vietnam and the ‘non-aligned countries’ (there were such things in those days), Hoxha attacked China’s attempt to form an imperialistic alliance with Japan. He writes:
American imperialism is striving to get its hooks ever more deeply implanted into the economies of other peoples, while Soviet social-imperialism which has just begun to spread its claws, is trying to drive them into various countries of the world in order to create and to consolidate its own neo-colonialist and imperialist positions. But there is also the ‘United Europe’, linked with the United States of America through NATO, which has individual, not concentrated imperialist tendencies. On the other hand, China, too, has joined in the dance in its endeavours to become a superpower, as well as Japanese militarism which has risen to its feet. These two imperialisms are linking themselves in an alliance in order to form an imperialist power opposed to the others. In these conditions, the great danger of world war is increased. The present alliances exist but will tend to shift in the sense that they will change their directions, but not their content. The beautiful words poured out about disarmament at the UNO and the various international conferences organized by the imperialists are demagogy. They have created and are guarding their monopoly of strategic weapons and are trafficking in arms on a large scale, not to guarantee the peace and security of nations, but to draw superprofits and to suppress the revolution and the peoples, to unleash aggressive wars.
Mao’s meeting with Nixon in February 1972 was far from the only bone of contention between Albania and China.
After breaking with the Chinese, Hoxha evidently saw the light:
Our country’s experience proves that the safeguarding of … economic and political independence and the defence of national sovereignty are closely linked with the consistent implementation of the principle of self-reliance.[51]
And this is indeed a lesson of central importance for national-anarchists. Yielding to the temptation to hitch one’s political hopes to some bloc or some powerful force is all very well when that bloc or force is moving in the direction in which you want to travel. However, when it begins to move in the opposite direction, selling out to your enemies, then the fact that you have become economically and politically dependent on such a powerful force makes it very costly for you to break the alliance. Self-reliance and independence may indeed impose an opportunity cost insofar as one does not benefit from the bribes and favours of the dominant power of the day. However, if you do not wish to follow the Establishment’s path, it is indeed the only way.
It is important to note that there was a crucial lesson that Hoxha did not learn, and it was to lead to the downfall of his social experiment. If you try to rule your homeland through terror, it will not endure. However many secret police you employ, however thorough your security systems, if you earn the hatred of your people then they will turn against all that you have created — if not during your life then after your death. And Hoxha exemplifies this admirably. Upon his death, he was succeeded by Ramiz Alia, who succumbed fairly rapidly to pressures for reform from within the country and from outside. Hoxha’s dogmatic Stalinism had alienated so many people that there was no loyalty to his ideals, his systems, his values. The people were simply unwilling to endure the economic hardships associated with a Stalinist economy in a small country and they fled, en masse, into the arms of the Americans. Had the regime attempted seriously to inculcate not merely a hatred of imperialism but also a love of their own way of doing things (as opposed to fear of the regime) then the history of this small country might have been far happier.
Quite apart from the important lessons that can be learned from Hoxha’s experiences — particularly regarding the dangers of a small homeland relying on the goodwill of great empires and the dangers of ruling that homeland by inspiring fear rather than love — Hoxha’s theoretical writings are also important.
In Imperialism and the Revolution Hoxha documents the rise of American imperialism thus:
Unlike the other imperialist powers, the United States of America emerged stronger from the war. Not only had it suffered no damage, but it had accumulated colossal wealth and had immensely increased its economic and military potential, and its technical-scientific base. Fattened on the blood shed by the peoples, this imperialism became the sole leadership of the entire capitalist world. American imperialism mobilized all the reactionary forces of the capitalist world to rescue the old capitalist order and crush any revolutionary and national liberation movement which endangered it, to destroy the socialist camp and restore capitalism in the Soviet Union and the countries of people’s democracy and to establish its hegemony everywhere in the world. To attain its objectives, US imperialism, along with world capital, set in motion its gigantic bureaucratic-military state machine, its great economic, technical and financial potential, all its human forces. US imperialism assisted the political, economic and military recovery of the shattered European and Japanese capitalism and, in place of the collapsed colonial system, set up a new system of exploitation and plunder — neocolonialism.
American imperialism mobilized its many nieans of propaganda, its philosophers, economists, sociologists, writers, etc., in the frenzied campaign which began against Marxism-Leninism, against communism, against the Soviet Union and other socialist countries of Europe and Asia. At the same time, American imperialism implemented an openly aggressive policy. Every field of life, the economy, politics, ideology, the army and science, in the United States of America was swept by war fever, militarization and anticommunism.
To conquer socialism, to put down the revolutionary liberation movements, to combat the great influence of the Marxist - Leninist theory and establish its hegemony in the world, American imperialism went about it in two ways.
The first was that of aggression and armed intervention. The American imperialists set up aggressive military blocs such as NATO, SEATO etc., stationed armed forces in large numbers on. the territories of many foreign countries, set up, military bases on all continents, and built powerful naval fleets which they deployed throughout the seas and oceans. In order to crush and stamp out the revolution, they undertook military intervention in Greece, Korea, Vietnam and elsewhere.
The other way was that of ideological aggression and subversion against the socialist states, the communist and workers’ parties, and of efforts to bring about the bourgeois degeneration of these states and parties. In this direction, American imperialism and world capital as a whole employed powerful means of propaganda and ideological diversion.[52]
It should thus be noted that Hoxha was under no illusions that American imperialism was fighting on the propaganda and cultural front as well as on the military front.
Similarly, unlike many other communists, Hoxha was under no illusion about the nature of the Soviet Union and its fellow travellers:
The peoples saw that the Soviet Union had been transformed into an imperialist superpower, which was contending with the United States of America for world domination, that, along with US imperialism, it had become another great enemy of the revolution, socialism and the peoples of the world.[53]
We have already seen that Hoxha by this time regarded the Chinese as also having imperialist aspirations. Thus, in his view, three great and malignant imperialist powers were striving for world domination. However, he also noted that they were not as antagonistic to each other as they might seem:
although, they have fierce contradictions with one another, US imperialism and the world capitalist bourgeoisie, Soviet social-imperialism and Chinese social-imperialism, modern revisionism and social-democracy are seeking a modus vivendi, a hybrid ‘new society’, in order to keep the bourgeois-capitalist system on its feet, to avert revolutions and to continue their oppression and exploitation of the peoples in new forms and by new methods.
Imperialism and capitalism have come to understand that now they can no longer exploit the peoples of the world with the previous methods, therefore, provided their system is not threatened, they have to concede something, which will cause them no harm, in order to keep the masses in bondage. This they want to do with the investments and credits they distribute to those states and cliques in which they have established their influence or by means of arms, i.e., local wars, either by taking a direct part in them or by inciting one state against another. Local wars serve to make those countries which fall into its trap more deeply subject to the hegemony of world capital.
All the ‘theoreticians’ in the service of world capital, in the West and in the East, are trying to find the formulae for this ‘new society’.[54]
This is a surprisingly perceptive foresight into the series of negotiations that were subsequently to lead to the rise of the New World Order, the demise of the Soviet Union, the incorporation of China into the American sphere, and the destruction of communism as a significant theoretical force in world politics. Indeed, Imperialism and the Revolution is a veritable treasure trove of insights into the manner in which imperialism works. These insights come from a firmly Marxist-Leninist — indeed, Stalinist — perspective, of course, which makes them quite unacceptable to the ‘far right’, but they are nevertheless important to national-anarchists in highlighting the modus operandi of the beast against which we fight. This is not the place to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Marxist analyses of imperialism — my purpose here is merely to suggest that it seems foolish to dismiss them a priori simply because they are Marxist.
Hoxha recognized the importance of varied strategies in combating the imperialist encirclement of his homeland:
The capitalist-revisionist encirclement and the pressure it exerts on us must never be underrated. We must not be foolishly overconfident in our understanding of these questions and in the real fight we must wage against the enemies surrounding us. The revolution has run into rocks and there are more ahead which must be blown up with explosives. Some must be blown up directly, some must be broken down piecemeal, while some others must be outflanked and then given the finishing blow. This is what understanding the strategy and tactics of the revolution means.[55]
Hoxha’s views on Eurocommunism are directly relevant when considering the parallel phenomenon of ‘Euronationalism’:
The struggle against imperialism in general, and its tools in every country is one of the fundamental questions of the strategy of every communist party, and one of the decisive conditions for the triumph of any revolution, whether people’s democratic, anti-imperialist or socialist. At the same time, its attitude to imperialism serves as a touchstone to evaluate the political and ideological position of every political force which operates either within the national framework of each country, or on an international scale. In other words, the stand towards imperialism has always been a line of demarcation which divides the genuine patriotic and democratic revolutionary forces, on the one hand, from the forces of reaction, counter-revolution and national betrayal, on the other hand. What is the stand of the Eurocommunists on this vital question of such major importance of principle?[56]
Hoxha noted the attitude of the Eurocommunists to NATO:
Let us take their stand towards NATO and the European Common Market, which represent two of the basic political, economic and military factors on which the domination of the European big bourgeoisie and the hegemony of American imperialism in Europe are founded and realized.
From the time it was created to this day, NATO has changed neither its nature, its aims nor its objectives. The agreements remain those which were signed in 1949. Everyone knows the purpose for which the Atlantic Pact was created and why it is maintained. Even if people did not know them, the Pentagon and the staff in Brussels remind them of this day by day. NATO was and still is a political and military alliance of American and European big capital, first of all to preserve the capitalist system and institutions in Europe, to prevent the revolution from breaking out and to strangle it violently if it begins to advance. On the other hand, this counterrevolutionary organization is an armed guard of neo-colonialism and the spheres of influence of imperialist powers, and a weapon for their political and economic expansion. To hope to achieve the transformation of West European capitalist society and the construction of socialism while having NATO and the American bases in the country, is to daydream. The attempts of the Eurocommunists to stress only the anti-Soviet function of NATO and to forget its mission of suppressing the revolution in Western Europe have the aim of deceiving the workers and preventing them from seeing the reality.
The Eurocommunists do not want to see the existence of a major national problem, the question of American domination in Western Europe and the need for liberation from it. From the end of the Second World War down to this day, American imperialism has bound this part of Europe with all kinds of political, economic, military, cultural and other chains. Without breaking these chains you cannot have socialism, or even that bourgeois democracy which the Eurocommunists praise to the skies.[57]
The attitude of the Eurocommunists towards the economic institutions of Western Europe are also criticized:
For the Eurocommunists, the European Common Market and United Europe, this great combine of capitalist monopolies and multinational companies for the exploitation of the peoples and the working masses of Europe and the peoples of the world, are a ‘reality’ which must be accepted.. But to accept this ‘reality’ means to accept the elimination of the sovereignty, the cultural and spiritual traditions of each individual country of Europe in favour of the interests of the big monopolies, to accept the elimination of the individuality of the European peoples and their transformation into a mass oppressed by the multinational companies dominated by American big capital.[58]
He adds:
Their reformist ideology, submission to the bourgeoisie and capitulation to the imperialist pressure have transformed the Eurocommunist parties into parties which are not only anti-revolutionary but also anti-national. Even amongst the ranks of the bourgeoisie it is rare to find people who call themselves politicians and who accept the concept of ‘limited sovereignty’, as Carrillo does.[59]
The relevance of Hoxha’s analysis of Eurocommunism to our own consideration of the ‘Euronationalist’ phenomenon should now be obvious. We do not hear the ‘Euronationalists’ boldly proclaim: ‘Death to all American imperialist soldiers, wherever they may be!’ Instead we hear weasel words about the ‘Islamic threat’ and ‘terrorism’ — precisely the codewords used by the Americans to justify their military invasions of the territory of other lands, their destruction of the economies of other land, their corruption of the cultures of other lands. The ‘nationalism’ of these Euronationalists is surprisingly silent when it comes to opposing the ultimate forces behind the destruction of the very nations whose interests these ‘Euronationalists’ purport to serve.

Precisely the same tendencies are at work behind ‘Euronationalism’ that were behind Eurocommunism: the desire for a quid pro quo whereby former revolutionaries sell out on their principles in exchange for a small taste of power and respectability, and the willingness to form an alliance with the Establishment against its opponents, even though the long-term aims of the Establishment involve the obliteration of the very things that these purveyors of ‘compromise’ claim to hold dear.

4.5.4 The juche idea
Whereas the Establishment media attempt to depict the North Korean regime of Kim Jong Il (son of its founder, Kim Il Sung) as merely another ‘communist dictatorship’ it is noteworthy that North Korean communism has made several interesting theoretical departures from standard Marxist fare. Indeed, under Kim Jong Il the official policy of the North Korean government has been not Marxism-Leninism but the juche idea.

In fact Kim Jong Il does not pull his punches in criticizing the shortcomings of orthodox Marxist theory. In an important 1990 speech he stated:
The Juche idea must not be viewed as a simple inheritance and development of Marxism-Leninism; it must be viewed as a new and original idea.[60]
He went on:
As a matter of course we have so far not spoken much about the limitations of Marxism-Leninism. But today when its limitations are more and more evident, it is necessary to bring them home to our officials.
He continued:
Marxism-Leninism has limitations not only in the outlook on the world but also in the theory of socialism and communism. It is not easy to clarify what a communist society, an ideal society of humanity, is. Moreover, it was difficult to go beyond the limits of prediction and supposition in clarifying the aspects of communism in a capitalist society since no country had raised the building of socialism and communism as a practical problem. Living in a capitalist society, Marx analysed its contradictions and on this basis proved the inevitability of the fall of capitalism and the transition to socialism and put forward the revolutionary theory on the overthrow of capitalism. Lenin analysed the crises and contradictions of imperialism, when capitalism reached the stage of monopoly. On this basis he elucidated the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country and put forward the revolutionary theory on the establishment of a socialist system. The founders of Marxism-Leninism, however, failed to expound a complete theory on socialism and communism owing to the limitations of their days.
Similar notions were also published by Kim Jong Il in an important 1996 article, ‘The Juche philosophy is an original revolutionary philosophy’.[61]

The juche idea stresses national independence and self-sufficiency. For example, in 1982, Kim Jong Il wrote:
Without the sense of national pride that one’s nation is inferior to none, without the pride and honour of the revolutionary people, it would be impossible to live up to one’s conviction in an independent manner, uphold national independence and dignity and emerge victorious in the difficult revolutionary struggle …[62]
It should be noted that juche is not a recent phenomenon — it owes its origins to a speech by Kim Jong Il’s father, former president Kim Il Sung in 1955.[63] Since that time it has gradually evolved, de-emphasizing its Marxist roots and emphasizing instead revolutionary nationalism and the uniquely Korean nature of this brand of communism.

Thus, for instance, we find the organs of the North Korean regime producing statements such as this:
The independent national economy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has steadily developed in spite of the persistent economic sanctions and blockade of the United States and its allies. Korea’s is an economy that develops on the basis of its efforts and resources to meet is people’s demand and that serves the people for their happy life. It is also a comprehensive economy that produces by itself in the main industrial goods and agricultural products needed for economic construction, defence upbuilding and people’s living.
The Korean people built a solid independent national economy in a short period after the Korean War and developed it as a powerful economy equipped with a consolidated economic structure and modern technologies through the fulfilment of several economic plans …
With the independent national economy and a strong self-defence power based on it, the Korean people have defended socialism from the imperialists’ military threat and aggressive moves.
The Korean economy has developed unaffected by the imperialsts’ economic blockade and the changed situation of world economic markets.
Any kind of economic sanctions and blockade can never work on Korea with its own solid economic foundations.[64]
And this:
Self-reliance is the Korean people’s traditional mode of struggle. They have advanced victoriously, solving all problems with their own efforts and technology and under the motto of self-reliance in the whole course of the complicated and arduous revolutionary struggle.
Korean revolutionaries defeated the formidable Japanese imperialist aggressors and liberated the country, relying on the nation’s revolutionary forces.
Inheriting the brilliant tradition established by them, Korean workers made tractors, lorries, bulldozers and excavators in the late 1950s though they lacked designs, technicians, materials and equipment …
They launched satellite Kwangmyongsong No. 1 in Juche 87 (1988) with their own efforts and technology, rezoned more than 200,000 hectares of arable land to suit the features of the socialist country and built large and modern salterns, motorways, waterways and factories in recent years.
All these achievements are products of self-reliance displayed by the Korean people in the era of the army-based revolution.
The Korean people, deeply aware through their historical experience that self-reliance is their only choice, will as ever seek to build a powerful and prosperous nation with their own efforts.[65]
In the juche idea we see the realization that through independence and self-reliance it is possible to build up a degree of immunity to the various ‘pressures for change’ applied by the outside world. Whether North Korea will continue to practise what it preaches in this regard remains to be seen — its reliance on one-man leadership makes it dangerously vulnerable to ideological change resulting from either a change in leader or pressures applied to that leader.

4.5.5 Classical anarchism
To describe classical anarchist theory as a ‘mess’ is perhaps charitable. While there is much talk of abolishing ‘the state’, it is not altogether clear that there is overwhelming agreement as to what, precisely, is to be abolished or what, precisely, is to replace what has been abolished.
Bakunin, whose writings taken in toto contain a fascinating mixture of the inspirational and the asinine, gives us the following eminently sensible view of politics:
The ‘Communists’ pretend to organize the working classes in order to ‘capture the political power of the State’. The revolutionary socialists organize people with the object of the liquidation of the States altogether whatever be their form …
We are … of the conviction that humankind has allowed itself too long enough to be governed and legislated for and that the origin of its misery is not to be looked for in this or that form of government and man-established State, but in the very nature and existence of every ruling leadership, of whatever kind and in whatever name this may be. The best friends of the ignorant people are those who free them from the thraldom of leadership and let people alone to work among themselves with one another on the basis of equal comradeship.[66]
The idea of people working among themselves, rather than being ruled over by some form of centralized government, is of fundamental importance to the concept of national anarchism, but the words ‘on the basis of equal comradeship’ add a problematic element. What is equal comradeship? Who is to enforce it? What happens if people do not wish to work together on a basis of equal comradeship? What if some element of leadership is necessary if certain tasks are to be performed? What, indeed, if some form of leadership emerges? Who is to put it back in its box?

Elsewhere Bakunin writes:
The State, however popular may be the form it assumes, will always be an institution of domination and exploitation, and consequently a permanent source of poverty and enslavement for the populace. There is no other way, then, of emancipating the people economically and politically, of giving them liberty and well-being at one and the same time than by abolishing the State, all States, and, by so doing, killing, once and for all time, what, up to now, has been called ‘Politics,’ i e., precisely nothing else than the functioning or manifestation both internal and external of State action, that is to say, the practice, or art and science of dominating and exploiting the masses in favour of the privileged classes.[67]
However, as invariably happens with classical anarchists, the lofty idealism crumbles into complete gibbering idiocy the very moment when the hard practical issue of what is to replace the abolished state arises:
The future social organization should be carried out from the bottom up, by the free association or federation of workers, starting with the associations, then going on to the communes, the regions, the nations, and, finally, culminating in a great international and universal federation.[68]
And suppose the workers do not wish their societies to unite into districts, communes, or national communes? Suppose they wish it but can’t get themselves organized to do it? Suppose they wish it and succeed in getting it but then do not wish to take the further step of forming a great international federation (with all the organizing and leadership implicit in the task of creating such a federation)? And what if, once this international federation appears, it uses its power to side with some communes against others, or supports particular factional interests against others? What if it begins to act in an overbearing or repressive or imperialistic manner? What if it becomes influenced, infiltrated or subverted by the Establishment or its agents or sympathizers, or by others who are less than enchanted with the new order? The supporters of Bakunin might respond by shrugging their shoulders sadly and commenting that there will doubtless be problems but, once liberated from the state, the workers will surely deal with them somehow, in their own way. But these are weighty issues — many lives depend upon their resolution. Indeed, the very future of the world depends on it. Surely we are entitled not merely to shrugs but rather to specific answers and, more to the point, specific strategies!

Bakunin’s call for the abolition of the state is confused further by his habit of advocating policies for the ‘post-abolition’ world that appear to require a considerable degree of state repression:
We … seek the final and the utter abolition of classes; we seek a unification of society and equality of social and economic provision for every individual on this earth.[69]
And what if the people, or some of them, do not want an ‘utter abolition of classes’? Is it to be forced upon them, perhaps at gunpoint after the midnight knock on the door? How are we to guarantee (as opposed to merely hope for) a ‘unification of society and equality of social and economic provision for every individual on this earth’ without a state to make it happen and to prevent people from standing in its way or abusing it?
Indeed, in his earlier work, the ‘Revolutionary Catechism’ (not to be confused with the controversial work allegedly produced in collaboration with Nechayev) Bakunin had the following to say:
It is impossible to determine a concrete, universal, and obligatory norm for the internal development and political organization of every nation. The life of each nation is subordinated to a plethora of different historical, geographical, and economic conditions, making it impossible to establish a model of organization equally valid for all. Any such attempt would be absolutely impractical. It would smother the richness and spontaneity of life which flourishes only in infinite diversity and, what is more, contradict the most fundamental principles of freedom. However, without certain absolutely essential conditions the practical realization of freedom will be forever impossible.
These conditions are:
A. The abolition of all state religions and all privileged churches, including those partially maintained or supported by state subsidies. Absolute liberty of every religion to build temples to their gods, and to pay and support their priests.

B. The churches considered as religious corporations must never enjoy the same political rights accorded to the productive associations; nor can they be entrusted with the education of children; for they exist merely to negate morality and liberty and to profit from the lucrative practice of witchcraft.

C. Abolition of monarchy; establishment of a commonwealth.

D. Abolition of classes, ranks, and privileges; absolute equality of political rights for all men and women; universal suffrage

E. Abolition, dissolution, and moral, political, and economic dismantling of the all-pervasive, regimented, centralized State, the alter ego of the Church, and as such, the permanent cause of the impoverishment, brutalization, and enslavement of the multitude. This naturally entails the following: Abolition of all state universities: public education must be administered only by the communes and free associations. Abolition of the state judiciary: all judges must be elected by the people. Abolition of all criminal, civil, and legal codes now administered in Europe: because the code of liberty can be created only by liberty itself. Abolition of banks and all other institutions of state credit. Abolition of all centralized administration, of the bureaucracy, of all permanent armies and state police.

F. Immediate direct election of all judicial and civil functionaries as well as representatives (national, provincial, and communal delegates) by the universal suffrage of both sexes.

G. The internal reorganization of each country on the basis of the absolute freedom of individuals, of the productive associations, and of the communes. Necessity of recognizing the right of secession: every individual, every association, every commune, every region, every nation has the absolute right to selfdetermination, to associate or not to associate, to ally themselves with whomever they wish and repudiate their alliances without regard to so-called historic rights or the convenience of their neighbors. Once the right to secede is established, secession will no longer be necessary. With the dissolution of a ‘unity’ imposed by violence, the units of society will be drawn to unite by their powerful mutual attraction and by inherent necessities. Consecrated by liberty, these new federations of communes, provinces, regions, and nations will then be truly strong, productive, and indissoluble.

H. Individual rights. The right of every man and woman, from birth to adulthood, to complete upkeep, clothes, food, shelter, care, guidance, education (public schools, primary, secondary, higher education, artistic, industrial, and scientific), all at the expense of society.

6. Society cannot, however, leave itself completely defenseless against vicious and parasitic individuals. Work must be the basis of all political rights. The units of society, each within its own jurisdiction, can deprive all such antisocial adults of political rights (except the old, the sick, and those dependent on private or public subsidy) and will be obliged to restore their political rights as soon as they begin to live by their own labor.

7. The liberty of every human being is inalienable and society will never require any individual to surrender his liberty or to sign contracts with other individuals except on the basis of the most complete equality and reciprocity. Society cannot forcibly prevent any man or woman so devoid of personal dignity as to place him or herself in voluntary servitude to another individual; but it can justly treat such persons as parasites, not entitled to the enjoyment of political liberty, though only for the duration of their servitude.

8. Persons losing their political rights will also lose custody of their children. Persons who violate voluntary agreements, steal, inflict bodily harm, or above all, violate the freedom of any individual, native or foreigner, will be penalized according to the laws of society. Individuals condemned by the laws of any and every association (commune, province, region, or nation) reserve the right to escape punishment by declaring that they wish to resign from that association. But in this case, the association will have the equal right to expel him and declare him outside its guarantee and protection.[70]
The cynic might be forgiven for observing that there is much here that implies precisely the sort of repression commonly associated with some of the most vicious states! What if the people want to form a little state with its own state religion? What if they want their children to be educated by church institutions? What if they want a monarchy or do not want a commonwealth? Suppose they want a system of classes, ranks or privilege? Suppose they would like to have universities, banks and the protection of their own police? And would those who are declared ‘parasites’ and who have their liberties and their children taken from them feel any different from the victims of similar actions taken by a more conventional state?
As for ‘direct election of all judicial and civil functionaries as well as representatives (national, provincial, and communal delegates) by the universal suffrage of both sexes ‘, this is truly confusing as, quite apart from the fact that the existence of such functionaries implies the existence of the judicial and civil functions of a state, Bakunin subsequently demonstrated a great awareness of the shortcomings of ‘elections’ and referendums:
Even when the representative system is improved by referendum, there is still no popular control, and real liberty — under representative government masquerading as self-government — is an illusion. Due to their economic hardships, the people are ignorant and indifferent and are aware only of things closely affecting them. They understand and know how to conduct their daily affairs. Away from their familiar concerns they become confused, uncertain, and politically baffled. They have a healthy, practical common sense when it comes to communal affairs. They are fairly well informed and know how to select from their midst the most capable officials. Under such circumstances, effective control is quite possible, because the public business is conducted under the watchful eyes of the citizens and vitally and directly concerns their daily lives. This is why municipal elections always best reflect the real attitude and will of the people. Provincial and county governments, even when the latter are directly elected, are already less representative of the people. Most of the time, the people are not acquainted with the relevant political, juridical, and administrative measures; those are beyond their immediate concern and almost always escape their control. The men in charge of local and regional governments live in a different environment, far removed from the people, who know very little about them. They do not know these leaders’ characters personally. and judge them only by their public speeches, which are packed with lies to trick the people into supporting them … If popular control over regional and local affairs is exceedingly difficult, then popular control over the federal or national government is altogether impossible.[71]
And once again we have the problem that it is not easy to see how the ‘right of every man and woman, from birth to adulthood, to complete upkeep, clothes, food, shelter, care, guidance, education (public schools, primary, secondary, higher education, artistic, industrial, and scientific), all at the expense of society’ can be guaranteed in the absence of a ‘state’. In practice one supposes that institutions would have to arise that are states in everything but name. Which rather defeats the point of advocating ‘the abolition of the state’ in the first place!
National-anarchists have a simple answer to these paradoxes. The answer is that as an alternative to powerful state systems we would advocate the formation of small communities, which may govern themselves however they wish. Those that wish to apply the sort of social system that Bakunin preferred may, of course, do so. However, those that do not like his brand of socialism would be free to run their affairs as they wish. Thus, if particular groups want religious education, or banks, or even a monarchy, they are quite free to have them. Some communities could be socialistic, others capitalistic, others deeply religious, others anti-religious. This is not, indeed, the ‘total abolition of the state’ but rather the delegation of the functions currently associated with large states to the community or homeland level, together with the freedom to carry out those functions however they wish. What is being abolished is not government but rather supra-community government, imperialistic government, and the imposition of ideology upon unwilling communities (the latter being something that the likes of Bakunin are evidently happy to contemplate). And this, surely, is the great strength of national anarchism (i.e. an anarchism of ‘nations’ or ‘homelands’ or ‘communities’ — an anarchism that liberates communities from imposed government) rather than the classical anarchism that purports to work at the individual level but, in practice, would not work at all.
The criticisms that I have made here of Bakunin apply fairly generally to other proponents of classical anarchism.
Peter Kropotkin famously defined ‘anarchism’ thus for the 1910 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica:
ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international temporary or more or less permanent - for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary — as is seen in organic life at large — harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the state.
If, it is contended, society were organized on these principles, man would not be limited in the free exercise of his powers in productive work by a capitalist monopoly, maintained by the state; nor would he be limited in the exercise of his will by a fear of punishment, or by obedience towards individuals or metaphysical entities, which both lead to depression of initiative and servility of mind. He would be guided in his actions by his own understanding, which necessarily would bear the impression of a free action and reaction between his own self and the ethical conceptions of his surroundings. Man would thus be enabled to obtain the full development of all his faculties, intellectual, artistic and moral, without being hampered by overwork for the monopolists, or by the servility and inertia of mind of the great number. He would thus be able to reach full individualization, which is not possible either under the present system of individualism, or under any system of state socialism in the so-called Volkstaat (popular state) …
As to their economical conceptions, the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility … But they point out also that the state was, and continues to be, the chief instrument for permitting the few to monopolize the land, and the capitalists to appropriate for themselves a quite disproportionate share of the yearly accumulated surplus of production. Consequently, while combating the present monopolization of land, and capitalism altogether, the anarchists combat with the same energy the state, as the main support of that system. Not this or that special form, but the state altogether, whether it be a monarchy or even a republic governed by means of the referendum …
It might be observed that Kropotkin has taken some crucial steps in the direction of national anarchism by defining the factor leading to the maintenance of harmony as free agreement between groups. He even takes a further step in this direction elsewhere by granting the right of dissent to non-anarchists when he writes:
We seek to recapture the spirit which drove people in the twelfth century to organism themselves on the basis of free agreement and individual initiative as well as of the free federation of the interested parties. And we are quite prepared to leave the others to cling to the imperial, the Roman and canonical tradition.[72]
Nevertheless, we find in Kropotkin the same strong contradiction between the advocacy of the abolition of government (rather than supra-community government) and the advocacy of highly specific and repressive policies. Thus:
EVERY society which has abolished private property will be forced, we maintain, to organize itself on the lines of Communistic Anarchy. Anarchy leads to Communism, and Communism to Anarchy, both alike being expressions of the predominant tendency in modern societies, the pursuit of equality …
We hold further that Communism is not only desirable, but that existing societies, founded on Individualism, are inevitably impelled in the direction of Communism . ..[73]
However, the following material makes it evident that this communism entails not merely the ‘abolition’ of private property but its expropriation:
we have … indicated the scope of Expropriation. It must apply to everything that enables any man — be he financier, mill-owner, or landlord — to appropriate the product of others’ toil. Our formula is simple and comprehensive.
We do not want to rob any one of his coat, but we wish to give to the workers all those things the lack of which makes them fall an easy prey to the exploiter, and we will do our utmost that none shall lack aught, that not a single man shall be forced to sell the strength of his right arm to obtain a bare subsistence for himself and his babes. This is what we mean when we talk of Expropriation; this will be our duty during the Revolution, for whose coming we look, not two hundred years hence, but soon, very soon.
Kropotkin continues:
Now, what we fear with regard to Expropriation is exactly the contrary. We are afraid of not going far enough, of carrying out Expropriation on too small a scale to be lasting. We would not have the revolutionary impulse arrested in mid-career, to exhaust itself in half measures, which would content no one, and while producing a tremendous confusion in society, and stopping its customary activities, would have no vital power—would merely spread general discontent and inevitably prepare the way for the triumph of reaction.[74]
No talk here of leaving the others to cling to their traditions — this is talk of people taking the property of other people. Now either this happens in an organized manner, in which case we might validly object that those who are organizing it are appropriating the functions of a highly repressive state, or we are talking about it happening in a chaotic manner, in which case we are simply talking about looting (which, moreover, can easily harm the weak far more than the rich). Moreover, whenever people engage in taking the property of other people on a large scale then issues of greed, unfairness, criminality, victimization, and brutality come into play, as well as the inevitable reactions of defending one’s property, revenge, feuding and so forth. Either these factors are held in check by what would have to be either a state or something remarkably similar to a state, or they are not held in check at all and everything descends into a chaotic nightmare in which the strong steal from the weak. However this is resolved, we still have here a clear example of a classical anarchist theorist descending into foaming idiocy.
And this idiocy gets worse! How would peasants in an urban anarchist revolt feed themselves? Kropotkin answers thus:
Let the towns send no more inspectors to the villages, wearing red, blue, or rainbow-coloured scarves, to convey to the peasant orders to take his produce to this place or that, but let them send friendly embassies to the country-folk and bid them in brotherly fashion: ‘Bring us your produce, and take from our stores and shops all the manufactured articles you please.’ Then provisions would pour in on every side. The peasant would only withhold what he needed for his own use, and would send the rest into the cities, feeling for the first time in the course of history that these toiling townsfolk were his comrades—his brethren, and not his exploiters.[75]
Presimably the ‘friendly embassies’ would be surrounded by flying pigs! But if Kropotkin’s plans for feeding the people seem eccentric, just look at what he says about housing them:
On the day that the expropriation of houses takes place, on that day, the exploited workers will have realized that the new times have come, that Labour will no longer have to bear the yoke of the rich and powerful, that Equality has been openly proclaimed, that this Revolution is a real fact, and not a theatrical make-believe, like so many others preceding it.
He continues:
Of course, the good folk in new uniforms, seated in the offcial arm-chairs of the Hôtel de Ville, will be sure to busy themselves in heaping up obstacles. They will talk of giving compensation to the landlords, of preparing statistics, and drawing up long reports. Yes, they would be capable of drawing up reports long enough to outlast the hopes of the people, who, after waiting and starving in enforced idleness, and seeing nothing come of all these official researches, would lose heart and faith in the Revolution and abandon the field to the reactionaries. The new bureaucracy would end by making expropriation hateful in the eyes of all.
Here, indeed, is a rock which might shipwreck our hopes. But if the people turn a deaf ear to the specious arguments used to dazzle them, and realize that new life needs new conditions, and if they undertake the task themselves, then expropriation can be effected without any great difficulty.
‘But how? How can it be done?’ you ask us. We shall try to reply to this question, but with a reservation. We have no intention of tracing out the plans of expropriation in their smallest details. We know beforehand that all that any man, or group of men, could suggest to-day would be far surpassed by the reality when it comes. Man will accomplish greater things, and accomplish them better and by simpler methods than those dictated to him beforehand. Thus we are content to indicate the manner by which expropriation might be accomplished without the intervention of Government …
It seems very likely that, as soon as expropriation is fairly started, groups of volunteers will spring up in every district, street, and block of houses, and undertake to inquire into the number of flats and houses which are empty and of those which are overcrowded, the unwholesome slums and the houses which are too spacious for their occupants and might well be used to house those who are stifled in swarming tenements In a few days these volunteers would have drawn up complete lists for the street and the district of all the flats, tenements, family mansions and villa residences, all the rooms and suites of rooms, healthy and unhealthy, small and large, foetid dens and homes of luxury.
Freely communicating with each other, these volunteers would soon have their statistics complete. False statistics can be manufactured in board rooms and offices, but true and exact statistics must begin with the individual and mount up from the simple to the complex.
Then, without waiting for any one’s leave, those citizens will probably go and find their comrades who were living in miserable garrets and hovels and will say to them simply: ‘It is a real Revolution this time, comrades, and no mistake about it. Come to such a place this evening; all the neighbourhood will be there; we are going to redistribute the dwelling-houses. If you are tired of your slum-garret, come and choose one of the flats of five rooms that are to be disposed of, and when you have once moved in you shall stay, never fear. The people are up in arms, and he who would venture to evict you will have to answer to them.’
‘But every one will want a fine house or a spacious flat!’ we are told. No, you are mistaken. It is not the people’s way to clamour for the moon. On the contrary, every time we have seen them set about repairing a wrong we have been struck by the good sense and instinct for justice which animates the masses. Have we ever known them demand the impossible? Have we ever seen the people of Paris fighting among themselves while waiting for their rations of bread or firewood during the two sieges? The patience and resignation which prevailed among them was constantly held up to admiration by the foreign press correspondents; and yet these patient waiters knew full well that the last comers would have to pass the day without food or fire.[76]
Further comment from me about the ideas of Peter Kropotkin would be superfluous.
Malatesta had a similarly other-worldly approach to anarchist politics:
we want Anarchism which is a society based on free and voluntary accord — a society in which no one can force his wishes on another and in which everyone can do as he pleases and together all will voluntarily contribute to the well-being of the community. But because of this Anarchism will not have definitively and universally triumphed until all men will not only not want to be commanded but will not want to command; nor will Anarchism have succeeded unless they will have understood the advantage of solidarity and know how to organise a plan of social life wherein there will no longer be traces of violence and imposition. And as the conscience, determination, and capacity of men continuously develop and find means of expression in the gradual modification of the new environment and in the realisation of the desires in proportion to their being formed and becoming imperious, so it is with Anarchism; Anarchism cannot come but little by little slowly, but surely, growing in intensity and extension. Therefore, the subject is not whether we accomplish Anarchism today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards Anarchism today, tomorrow, and always.Anarchism is the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by man, that is, the abolition of private property and government; Anarchism is the destruction of misery, of superstitions, of hatred. Therefore, every blow given to the institutions of private property and to the government, every exaltation of the conscience of man, every disruption of the present conditions, every lie unmasked, every part of human activity taken away from the control of the authorities, every augmentation of the spirit of solidarity and initiative, is a step towards Anarchism.[77]
Once again there is a complete lack of any indication of the specific changes that are to be made or how they are to be made. The ‘theory’ is little more than a distillation of pious hopes, devoid of specifics or substance, together with a vague exhortation to ‘walk toward’ these vague hopes.
Having outlined what I regard as the fundamental problem with classical anarchist theory I would now like to turn to the main point of this section, which is the manner in which classical anarchist theory can contribute to national-anarchist theory. We should note the following points.

(a) There is a strong rejection of ‘vanguardism’ or ‘the leading role of the party’. This has put the classical anarchists at odds with the Marxists for well over a century. It is perhaps most clearly expressed in Bakunin’s reservations about Marx’s statism:
The differences between revolutionary dictatorship and statism are superficial. Fundamentally they both represent the same principle of minority rule over the majority in the name of the alleged ‘stupidity’ of the latter and the alleged ‘intelligence’ of the former. Therefore they are both equally reactionary since both directly and inevitably must preserve and perpetuate the political and economic privileges of the ruling minority and the political and economic subjugation of the masses of the people.
Now it is clear why the dictatorial revolutionists, who aim to overthrow the existing powers and social structures in order to erect upon their ruins their own dictatorships, never were or will be the enemies of government, but, to the contrary, always will be the most ardent promoters of the government idea. They are the enemies only of contemporary governments, because they wish to replace them. They are the enemies of the present governmental structure, because it excludes the possibility of their dictatorship. At the same time they are the most devoted friends of governmental power. For if the revolution destroyed this power by actually freeing the masses, it would deprive this pseudo-revolutionary minority of any hope to harness the masses in order to make them the beneficiaries of their own government policy.
We have already expressed several times our deep aversion to the theory of Lassalle and Marx, which recommends to the workers, if not as a final ideal at least as the next immediate goal, the founding of a people’s state, which according to their interpretation will be nothing but ‘the proletariat elevated to the status of the governing class’.[78]
Elsewhere Bakunin wrote:
The concepts of the form and the conditions of the government, these ideas separate Bismarck from Mr. Marx. One is an out-and-out monarchist and the other is an out-and-out democrat and republican and, into the bargain, a socialist democrat and socialist republican.
Let us now see what unites them. It is the out-and-out cult of the State. I have no need to prove it in the case of Bismarck. The proofs are there. He is completely a state’s man, and nothing but a state’s man. But neither is it difficult to prove that Mr. Marx is also a state’s man. He loves government to such a degree that he even wanted to institute one in the International Workingmen’s Association; and he worships power so much that he wanted, and still intends today, to impose his dictatorship upon us. His socialist political program is a very faithful expression of his personal attitude. The supreme objective of all his efforts, as is proclaimed in the fundamental statutes of his party in Germany, is the establishment of the great People’s State

Any state, under pain of perishing and seeing itself devoured by neighboring states, must tend toward complete power, and having become powerful. it must embark on a career of conquest so that it will not itself be conquered; for two similar but competing powers cannot coexist without trying to destroy each other. Whoever says ‘conquest,’ under whatever form or name, says conquered peoples, enslaved and in bondage.
It is in the nature of the State to break the solidarity of the human race. The State cannot preserve itself as an integrated entity and in all its strength unless it sets itself up as the supreme be-all and end-all for its own subjects, though not for the subjects of other unconquered states. This inevitably results in the supremacy of state morality and state interests over universal human reason and morality, thus rupturing the universal solidarity of humanity. The principle of political or state morality is very simple. The State being the supreme objective, everything favorable to the growth of its power is good; everything contrary to it, however humane and ethical, is bad. This morality is called patriotism. The International is the negation of patriotism and consequently the negation of the State. If, therefore. Mr. Marx and his friends of the German Social Democratic party should succeed in introducing the State principle into our program, they would destroy the International.

But in the People’s State of Marx there will be, we are told, no privileged class at all. All will be equal, not only from the juridical and political point of view but also from the economic point of view. At least this is what is promised, though I very much doubt whether that promise could ever be kept. There will therefore no longer be any privileged class, but there will be a government and, note this well, an extremely complex government. This government will not content itself with administering and governing the masses politically, as all governments do today. It will also administer the masses economically, concentrating in the hands of the State the production and division of wealth, the cultivation of land, the establishment and development of factories, the organization and direction of commerce, and finally the application of capital to production by the only banker — the State. All that will demand an immense knowledge and many heads ‘overflowing with brains’ in this government. It will be the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant, and elitist of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of real and counterfeit scientists and scholars, and the world will be divided into a minority ruling in the name of knowledge, and an immense ignorant majority. And then, woe unto the mass of ignorant ones!
Such a regime will not fail to arouse very considerable discontent in the masses of the people, and in order to keep them in check, the ‘enlightened’ and ‘liberating’ government of Mr. Marx will have need of a not less considerable armed force. For the government must be strong, says Engels, to maintain order among these millions of illiterates whose mighty uprising would be capable of destroying and overthrowing everything, even a government ‘overflowing with brains.’[79]
The anarchists reject vanguardism because it implies statism, to which they are opposed on principle. There is, however, another reason for rejecting vanguardism and statism, and a far more pragmatic one. Vanguards and powerful states are remarkably vulnerable to subversion and hijacking, not least by the Establishment. The anarchist Emma Goldman seems to have noticed this:
Legend tells us that healthy newborn infants aroused the envy and hatred of evil spirits. In the absence of the proud mothers, the evil ones stole into the houses, kidnapped the babies, and left behind them deformed, hideous-looking monsters.
Socialism has met with such a fate. Young and lusty, crying out defiance to the world, it aroused the envy of the evil ones. They stole near when Socialism least expected and made off with it, leaving behind a deformity which is now stalking about under the name of Socialism.

How the political scene-shifters must grin when they see the rush of the people to the newest attraction in the political moving-picture show. The poor, deluded, childish people, who are forever fed on the political patent medicine, either of the Republican elephant, the Democratic cow, or the Socialist mule, the grunting of each merely representing a new ragtime from the political music box.

The masses are being drilled and canned for the political cold storage of Socialist campaigns. Every direct, independent, and courageous attack on capitalism and the State is being discouraged or tabooed. The stupid voters wait patiently from one political performance to another for the comrade actors in the theater of representation to give a show, and perhaps perform a new stunt. Meanwhile, the Socialist congressman introduces yard upon yard of resolutions for the waste basket, proposing the perpetuation of the very things Socialism once set out to overthrow. And the Socialist mayors are busy assuring the business interests of their towns that they may rest in peace, no harm will ever come to them from a Socialist mayor. And if such Punch-and-Judy shows are criticised, the good Socialist adherents grow indignant and say that we must wait until the Socialists have the majority.
The political trap has transferred Socialism from the proud, uncompromising position of a revolutionary minority, fighting fundamentals and undermining the strongholds of wealth and power, to the camp of the scheming, compromising, inert political majority, busying itself with non-essentials, with things that barely touch the surface, measures that have been used as political bait by the most lukewarm reformers: old age pensions, initiative and referendum, the recall of judges, and other such very startling and terrible things.[80]
Time and time again we have seen socialist and Marxist movements set out upon an idealistic course only to swerve in all sorts of different directions as leaders come and go, ending up by delivering their states firmly into the hands of the American empire. The anarchist aversion to powerful states, leaders and vanguards and the interest of the anarchists in alternative modes of administration and in techniques for ‘jamming the works’ of states thus constitutes an important and valuable theoretical position. These points, however, are entirely lost on the ‘far right’, whose love affair with vanguards and conventional states is notorious.

(b) There is much support for the formation of small communities, although the classical anarchists have underestimated the crucial role of the community as the basic building block for the anarchist project. An anarchism at the individual level would either quickly be replaced by a resurgent state or would descend into utter chaos. An anarchism at the community level, whereby there is no state above the communities but self-determination within the communities, on the other hand, is completely feasible.
In this regard I have already shown how Kropotkin, in his saner moments, recognized the importance of the group to the anarchist project and how, in his 1910 Britannica definition of anarchism, he asserted that harmony in a post-statist society would arise from free agreement between groups. Indeed, Kropotkin was most supportive of attempts to form communes and was full of advice on how it should be done[81] (although, as I have argued elsewhere,[82] it was not particularly good advice). Even Malatesta saw the advantage of working men organizing their own groups to free their social lives from Establishment influence:
to arrive at Anarchism, material force is not the only thing to make a revolution; it is essential that the workers, grouped according to the various branches of production, place themselves in a position that will insure the proper functioning of their social life — without the aid or need of capitalists or governments.[83]
(c) There is often at least lip service paid to a rejection of Marxist dogmatism (although it is sometimes replaced by other dogmatic positions).

d) There is a strongly anti-Establishment ethos that does not simply confine itself to attacking those elements of the Establishment that are commonly labelled ‘right wing’ or ‘capitalist’ but that is happy to wage war against all the collaborating, colluding, or subverted sects and tendencies.

4.5.6 The importance of ‘left-wing’ writings and experiences
Almost all Marxist philosophers, and many anarchists, make the fundamental error of reducing political conflict to the conflict between capitalist and labour. They therefore frequently miss the important point that all the techniques of hegemony and repression, all the co-option, all the compromises, all the betrayals, all the use of the media, all the ‘divide-and-rule’ strategies that they attribute to the capitalists can, in fact, be used by any oppressive regime against its opponents. Those self-same tools that are used one day by capitalists to oppress labour can, the very next day, be used by a nominally ‘Marxist’ political party to oppress anyone whom it deems its enemy. In the gargantuan struggle of the modern age between the oppressive forces of the Establishment and all who would oppose it, precisely the same tools can be seen to be in operation against anti-Establishment forces of all kinds, be they Marxists, Islamists, anarchists or anyone else. 
But here is the crucial point: the same tools are also applied in the oppression of the ‘far right’, whose characteristic nationalism and anti-liberalism are antagonistic to the globalizing and neoliberal tendencies of the Establishment. Indeed, it could be said that the oppression of the ‘far right’ by the Establishment offers some of the most clear-cut and outrageous examples of these very techniques of oppression identified by the Marxists. 
However, the ‘far right’, being firmly trapped in the ‘left-right’ paradigm, has not made any use whatsoever of this ever-evolving body of literature produced by the Marxists nor have they drawn lessons from the anarchists. And this constitutes a decisive victory for Establishment semantic infiltration techniques. By brainwashing nationalists into perceiving themselves as situated on the ‘far right’ of a ‘political spectrum’, and the Marxists as situated on the ‘far left’, the Establishment has created a false opposition — a state of unnecessary hostility — between these two groups. And one result of this false opposition is the tendency of those on the ‘far right’ to dismiss the theoretical works of the ‘far left’ in toto. Thereby, of course, missing the opportunity to profit by the Marxist insights into the techniques of repression used against all who are antagonistic to the Establishment — themselves included! 
The national-anarchists, by contrast, do not suffer from this shortcoming. As argued above, national-anarchists characteristically regard talk of ‘left’ and ‘right’ and ‘political spectrums’ as a trick and a nonsense. They do not have their hands tied in the same way as the so-called ‘far right’ and can draw as they wish from philosophies of the ‘left’, ‘right’, ‘centre’, and everywhere else! Instead of rejecting Marxism in toto, they can take what they perceive to be useful and reject what they regard to be flawed. 
The history of the twentieth century was such that it encouraged Marxists to study techniques of oppression in great depth. They have been involved in many conflicts throughout the world and have accumulated much experience and knowledge. That the ‘far right’ wishes to rubbish this experience and this knowledge is a major blunder on the part of the ‘far right’. There is no reason for national-anarchists to fall into the same trap.
5. Towards a Pragmatic Approach to the ‘Far Right’

5.1 So what do we do with the ‘far right’?
It has been the purpose of this article to argue that the core beliefs and values of national-anarchism can usefully be viewed as distinct from those of movements generally labelled as ‘far right’ and that national-anarchism could benefit by distinguishing itself clearly from the ‘far right’ rather than regarding itself as some sort of offshoot or subcategory of the ‘far right’. However, this is not an argument for shunning or opposing the ‘far right’ as a matter of principle. Quite the contrary. Just as national-anarchists can, when the circumstances are correct, work alongside Islamists, anarchists, communists and many other shades of opinion, so they can, when the circumstances are correct, work alongside those movements labelled ‘far right’. National-anarchism is not Islam but it can work with Islam. National-anarchism is not anarchism but it can work with anarchism. National-anarchism is not communism but it can work with communism. National-anarchism is not Christianity or Odinism or Buddhism but it can work with Christianity or Odinism or Buddhism. And likewise, national-anarchism is not ‘part of the so-called far right’ but it can work with the so-called ‘far right.

5.2 There are areas where national-anarchists can learn from the ‘far right’

5.2.1 Theoretical contributions
The ‘far right’ is not greatly known for useful theoretical contributions. Certainly, its adherents have their favourite philosophers, ranging from purveyors of ‘just so’ stories (Evola) to mainstream iconoclasts whose writings are sufficiently unclear to permit of politically convenient interpretations when selectively quoted (Nietzsche). However, it is by no means obvious that these philosophers have contributed much of political value to the world. Nevertheless, we may note certain theoretical innovations that have emanated from individuals and movements often labelled ‘far right’.

(a) The lone-wolf approach to politics. The idea that, because groups are easily targeted by state and other enemy agencies, individuals should be encouraged to engage in activity on their own as far as possible.
(b) An awareness of the psychological importance of racial, ethnic, national and religious factors in politics. Although, as I have argued above, this is by no means confined to the ‘far right’, those movements that attract the ‘far right’ label are nevertheless adept at upholding sectional interests — a valuable skill when confronting a neoliberal globalizing empire that seeks to replace sectionalinterests with financial interests. This is all about preserving the small , intimate community against a harsh and uncaring global regime; about preserving cultures, ways of life, standards, identities against a regime for which global finance is everything.
(c) A rejection of many Establishment attempts at semantic infiltration. A classic tactic used by the Establishment is to encourage the people to worship words, which are then appropriated by the Establishment. The people might not be able to agree what ‘democracy’ or ‘freedom’ actually are, and even the learned philosophers and statesmen of the world do not speak in one voice on these matters, nevertheless all are agreed that ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ are good and should be upheld, even at great cost. True, the people might be a little hazy as to why these virtues should be upheld … but so long as teachers, newspaper editors, lecturers and television producers continue to assure the people that these words really do represent great goods and that theyreally must be upheld then the people will, on the whole, duly regard those who set themselves up as the defenders of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ (i.e. those with access to the Establishment media) as the forces of goodness and those who are denounced (by the Establishment media) as enemies of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ as the forces of evil. The ‘far right’ is often, but not always, refreshingly cynical about the Establishment’s use of words for psychological purposes. Adolf Hitler, for instance, wrote the following in Mein Kampf.
If, however, we consider the question, what, in reality, are the state-forming or even state-preserving forces, we can sum them up under one single head: the ability and will of the individual to sacrifice himself for the totality. That these virtues have nothing at all to do with economics can be seen from the simple realization that man never sacrifices himself for the latter, or, in other words: a man does not die for business, but only for ideals. Nothing proved the Englishman’s superior psychological knowledge of the popular soul better than the motivation which he gave to his struggle. While we fought for bread, England fought for ‘freedom’; and not even for her own, no, for that of the small nations. In our country we laughed at this effrontery, or were enraged at it, and thus only demonstrated how emptyheaded and stupid the so-called statesmen of Germany had becorne even before the War. We no longer had the slightest idea concerning the essence of the force which can lead men to their death of their own free will and decision.
In 1914 as long as the German people thought they were fighting for ideals, they stood firm; but as soon as they were told to fight for their daily bread, they preferred to give up the game.
And our brilliant ‘statesmen’ were astonished at this change in attitude. It never became clear to them that from the moment when a man begins to fight for an economic interest, he avoids death as much as possible, since death would forever deprive him of his reward for fighting. Anxiety for the rescue of her own child makes a heroine of even the feeblest mother, and only the struggle for the preservation of the species and the hearth, or the state that protects it, has at all times driven men against the spears of their enemies.[84
Just as the Establishment encourages the people to worship certain words, which it then appropriates, so it encourages them to despise other words, which it then attributes to its enemies (who, of course, are typically deprived of a proportionate opportunity to respond). Thus terms such as ‘racist’, ‘fascist’, ‘extremist’ and, more recently, ‘terrorist’ are now regularly used to demonize the enemies of the Establishment. Many, but not all, who attract the label ‘far right’ are adept at pouring cold water on this particular technique by contesting Establishment ‘holy cows’ or demonizations, and introducing opposing concepts such as ‘political correctness’ (an ironic appropriation of a term originally found among the more inflexible Marxists).

(d) A rejection of many of the more dubious concepts associated with ‘left-wing’ radicalism. To be ‘left-wing’ nowadays usually entails, for example, ‘anti-racism’. But ‘anti-racism’ is merely one means by which the Establishment polices dissent against the authoritarian multiculturalism that it uses to break down loyalty to existing nations, homelands, communities and groups, replacing them instead with loyalty to a globalized regime in which the movement of capital is far easier. This is not to argue for bestial behaviour towards other races. Rather, it is to accept that a globalized world is ultimately not in the interests of any race and that the ‘anti-racist’ movement, in breaking down resistance to such a world, is therefore pernicious in its effects, if not in its intentions. Similarly, concepts such as ‘class’ seem unnecessarily divisive. What is of importance is not a man’s ‘social class’ but rather whether he is for the Establishment or against it. These points are well taken by the ‘far right’ but are resisted passionately by most of the other political tendencies (with some exceptions).

5.2.2 Successes and failures
Just as we can learn from elements of far-right ‘theory’, so we can learn from the successes and failures of ‘far-right’ political action.
First, we can learn from their successes.

(a) They are particularly effective at influencing local politics in areas where they have a great deal of popular support due to local alienation from mainstream politics. However, a word of caution is necessary here. Such victories at the local level might indeed be good for morale and for publicizing one’s existence, and perhaps even for gaining a few recruits here and there, but it is doubtful whether they are useful for much else. They have little long-term value. There is a danger that much time, money and effort could be spent in pursuing these small-scale successes when the same resources could be deployed far more profitably in striving for longer term goals.
(b) They have proven capable of influencing mainstream politicians into modifying unpopular policies. In Britain we see how the National Front, for all its irrelevance to the electoral process, nevertheless managed to pressurize the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher into toughening legislation on immigration in the 1980s. However, once again, this was merely a short-term victory. If the long-term aim was to prevent massive non-white immigration into Britain, it failed miserably: once Margaret Thatcher departed from the scene such immigration rose relentlessly. Similarly, the BNP has, at the time of writing, forced the current Labour government into making several concessions on asylum and immigration policy. Nevertheless, these concessions are merely a drop in the ocean and, in the long term, are quite insufficient to make much difference to the general direction in which Britain is heading.
(c) They are adept at provoking an hysterical over-reaction. This can be useful when it is necessary to create a general atmosphere of chaos and panic, perhaps as a smokescreen for more serious political activities.

Second, we can learn from their failures. Their repeated failure to make much headway in national politics, either by using electoral systems or by armed coups and revolutionary violence, contains some sobering lessons for those who would advocate such strategies. The ease with which their organizations have been infiltrated, subverted and rendered ineffective is also most instructional. The tendency of their leaders to sell out on matters of principle, their incessant squabbling among themselves, their lack of any unifying body of theory — all of these things can be noted and can serve as stark warnings to those contemplating taking the ‘far right’ path.
Third, we can learn from the Establishment’s responses to these people. We can look at its techniques of repression and we can observe which are successful and which are not. Then we can evolve strategies to counter the more successful techniques and apply them in our own struggles with the Establishment.

5.3 There are areas where national-anarchists can make common cause with the ‘far right’
We can identify several areas where national-anarchists and those on the ‘far right’ are likely to be able to make common cause to a greater or lesser extent.

(a) Anti-globalization work. Much of the ‘far right’ is opposed to globalization, as are the national-anarchists.
(b) Anti-Establishment work. ‘Far right’ individuals and organizations are frequently opposed to the Establishment, not least because of its neoliberal, multicultural, internationalist perspective.
(c) Anti-repression work. As the natural allies of all who are oppressed by the Establishment, whether such oppression takes the form simply of denial of access to the media and hence to the electoral system or whether it involves persecution, imprisonment, terror and murder, both national-anarchists and the ‘far right’ (who are frequently victims of such tactics) have an interest in cooperating to publicize and combat the ‘dirty tricks’ of the Establishment.
(d) Cultural work. Joint actions to support the cultures of peoples that are threatened by the New World Order and to attack and subvert pro-Establishment cultural activity.
(e) Community-building work. The idea of community building certainly appears to be gaining ground among groups labelled ‘far right’ by the Establishment. Where this happens then it certainly provides room for cooperation.

5.4 In conclusion
Hitherto, politics has been a struggle between individuals and groups for the control of nation states, and a struggle of nation states to gain resources, influence and dominance. In the decades and centuries that are to come, however, we might anticipate a radical change in the nature of political activity. We might anticipate that with the decline of the nation state there will arise a monumental struggle between two great social forces. On the one hand there will be the great globalized neoliberal Establishment — the New World Order — a world imperial power with vast resources, invincible armies, massive intelligence and propaganda organs reaching deep into every home and into every corner of the Earth. On the other hand, and against this, there will be ranged all who oppose the global Establishment: the poor, the downtrodden, the oppressed, the exploited, the marginalized, the despised, the inconvenient, those who will not swallow the official line, those who know too much, those who will not shut up, those whose values or faiths or beliefs conflict with the neoliberal dogmas of our age, those who want to be independent. There is no reason to conceive of either of these two great adversarial groups as homogeneous monoliths. On the contrary — both will consist of ever shifting alliances, some of which will doubtless break away from time to time and join the other camp. Nevertheless, a crucial factor determining the feasibility of any alliance is likely to be not the position of an individual or group on some outmoded ‘left-right political spectrum’ but rather whether that individual or group is pro-Establishment or anti-Establishment.
Those groups, whether they term themselves ‘far right’, ‘far left’ or anything else, which fall into the anti-Establishment camp are inevitably on the same side as the national-anarchists, who by definition are anti-Establishment. Insofar as the ‘far right’ falls into the anti-Establishment camp — which is by no means always the case — then it is on the same side as the national-anarchists. Nevertheless, there are compelling reasons, both practical and theoretical, to draw a clear distinction between national-anarchist politics and those of the ‘far right’.
In an important article published on the Internet,[85] Troy Southgate outlined the history of national-anarchism and its roots in Britain’s National Front. These roots, as well as some of the language, symbolism (such as the use of the sunwheel), and rhetoric of some national-anarchists have led to a perception that the national-anarchists are really ‘just fascists in disguise’. This is not true. It must never be permitted to become true. Our relationship with the ‘far right’ must be entirely pragmatic, as should be our relationships with all potential allies.
1 Rokeach M (1968) Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc (‘beliefs are organized along a dimension of centrality or importance. Centrality is simply defined in terms of interconnectedness … the more a belief is functionally connected or in communication with other beliefs, the more implication s and consequences it has for other beliefs, and therefore, the more central the belief’); Barbour IG (1997) Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. San Francisco: Harper; Brownlee J, Boulton-Lewis G, Purdie N (2002) Core beliefs about knowing and peripheral beliefs about learning: developing an holistic conceptualisation of epistemological beliefs. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology 2: 1—16. Indeed, the distinction is hinted at in WVO Quine (1951) Two dogmas of empiricism, The Philosophical Review 60: 20-43: ‘The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience. A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field. Truth values have to be redistributed over some of our statements. Re-evaluation of some statements entails re-evaluation of others, because of their logical interconnections — the logical laws being in turn simply certain further statements of the system, certain further elements of the field. Having re-evaluated one statement we must re-evaluate some others, whether they be statements logically connected with the first or whether they be the statements of logical connections themselves. But the total field is so undetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole.’)
2 Barbour IG (1997) op. cit.
3 Michael D (2002) Unity in diversity. Voice of the Resistance 1, p. 15. 
4 Mussolini B (1932) La dottrina del Fascismo. Enciclopedia Italiana. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. 
5 Michael D (2003) A new land, a new life, a new hope. Voice of the Resistance 2 p. 17—24. 
6 Adolf Hitler (1924/2000) Mein Kampf, Boring OR: CPA Books. 
7 Adolf Hitler (1937) ‘On National Socialism and world relations’, speech delivered in the German Reichstag on 30 January. 
8 Klassen B (1973/1992) Nature’s Eternal Religion. East Peoria: Creativity Publishing, Ch. 10. 
9 Even the apartheid rulers did not envisage conquest and imperial domination from Pretoria. From 1959 the vision was of a ‘commonwealth’ of separate black and white states. Subsequently this changed into talk of a ‘constellation’ of independent states (Vorster in 1975 and Botha in 1979), although the South Africans never had the determination to follow through on this vision. 
10 Pitigliani F (1934) The Italian Corporative State. New York: Macmillan. Thyssen F (1941) I Paid Hitler. Translated by Cesar Saerchinger. New York: Kennikat Press. Hallgarten GWF (1952) Adolf Hitler and German Heavy Industry, 1931—3. Journal of Economic History 12: 222—46. Corner P (1979) Fascist agrarian policy and the Italian economy in the interwar years. In Davis JA (ed.) Gramsci and Italy’s Passive Revolution. London: Croon Helm. Schweitzer A (1964) Big Business in the Third Reich. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Hayes P (1987) Industry and Ideology: IG Farben in the Nazi Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adler FH (1996)Italian Industrialists from Liberalism to Fascism. The Political Development of the Industrial Bourgeoisie, 1906—34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Guernin D (2000) Fascism and Big Business. New York: Pathfinder Press. Bosworth RJB (2002) Mussolini. New York: Oxford University Press. 
11 Payne SG (1987) The Franco Regime. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Leitz C (1997) Economic Relations between Nazi Germany and Franco’s Spain, 1936—1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellwood SM (2000) Franco: Profiles in Power. Upper Saddle River NJ: Pearson Education. 
12 Gianfranco Fini eschews his fascist salutes, Guardian, 24 January 2002. 
13 Reuters report, 6 November 1995. 
14 Reported in Ha’aretz, 2 May 2002. 
15 Associated Press report, 18 July 2002. 
16 Millions rally worldwide for peace, Guardian 17 February 2003. 
17 EU delegates debate constitution articles, Guardian, 28 February 2002. 
18 Melman Y (2003) Zhirinovsky: Saddam won’t attack Israel. Ha’aretz, 20 January 2003. 
19 Letter from Vladimir Zhirinovsky to Rabbi Berel Lazar of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia, 22 June 2001. 
20 Hooper J, Fossgard J (2000) Haider race to power was helped by Reebok, Guardian, 10 February. 
21 Haider J (2000) Blair and me versus the forces of conservatism. Daily Telegraph 22 February, p. 22. 
22 The man and his message, Time Europe, 14 February 2000. 
23 Primor A (2002) Le Pen ultimate. Ha’aretz 18 April. 
24 Sadeh S (2002) The British Le Pen is Euphoric. Ha’aretz 30 April. 
25 Morris A (2003) With local elections approaching, British Jews warn of far-right threat. Jewish Telegraphic Agency report, 14 April. 
26 Michael, D. (2002) Unity in diversity. Voice of the Resistance 1, p. 15. 
27 ibid. 
28 Klassen B (1973/1992) op cit. 
29 Britain’s National Union of Journalists (NUJ) is uncompromising in its advocacy of bias against the ‘far right’.Its guidelines on ‘reporting racist organizations’, as in force in early 2003, state: 
[i[— When interviewing representatives of racist organisations or reporting meetings or statements or claims, journalists should carefully check all reports for accuracy and seek rebutting or opposing comments. The anti-social nature of such views should be exposed. 
— Do not sensationalise by reports, photographs, film or presentation the activities of racist organisations. 
— Seek to publish or broadcast material exposing the myths and lies of racist organisations and their anti-social behaviour. 
— Do not allow the letters column or ‘phone-in’ programmes to be used to spread racial hatred in whatever guise.[/i]
Its ‘statement on race reporting’ is even more forthright, its first six points being: 
1 The NUJ believes that the development of racist attitudes and the growth of fascist parties pose a threat to democracy, the rights of trade union organisations, a free press and the development of social harmony and well being. 
2 The NUJ believes that its members cannot avoid a measure of responsibility in fighting the evil of racism as expressed through the mass media. 
3 The NUJ reaffirms its total opposition to censorship but equally reaffirms the belief that press freedom must be conditioned by responsibility and an acknowledgement by all media workers of the need not to allow press freedom to be abused to slander a section of the community or to promote the evil of racism. 
4 The NUJ believes that the methods and the lies of the racists should be publicly and vigorously exposed. 
5 The NUJ believes that newspapers and magazines should not originate material which encourages discrimination on grounds of race or colour as expressed in the NUJ’s Rule Book and Code of Conduct. 
6 The NUJ recognises the right of members to withhold their labour on grounds of conscience where employers are providing a platform for racist propaganda.
On 23 April 2002, the same National Union of Journalists issued a statement exhorting journalists to ‘expose fascists standing in local elections’. 
30 An example of this is the British Broadcasting Corporation’s use of its ‘taste and decency policy’ to, apparently unlawfully, prevent the supporters of ‘far right’ parties from being permitted the right of free expression, even where such a right is extended to smaller and far more violent parties. During elections held in 1997 and 1999, the BBC’s online Web site refused point blank to link to the BNP’s Web site, although it did link to the sites of other parties including smaller and more violent ones. When challenged to state precisely what violated this policy, it failed repeatedly to do so. The same happened again prior to the 2001 elections. On that occasion, the BNP threatened legal action and the BBC did create such a link. However, after the election the BBC continued its previous approach and, at the time of writing (April 2003) there is no sign of a ‘thaw’ (much less the much claimed but utterly mythical BBC ‘impartiality’). The BNP, meanwhile, has (at the time of writing) been far too muddled and disorganized to pursue the matter further. 
31 Hooper J (2003) German court rejects attempt to ban neo-Nazi party, Guardian, 19 March. 
32 [Gramsci A] Hoare Q and Nowell Smith G (trans. and ed.) (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers. 
33 Spengler O (1926) The Decline of the West. Translation with notes by Charles Francis Atkinson. Allen & Unwin: London 
34 Gramsci A (1921) Elections and freedom. L’Ordine Nuovo, 21 April. 
35 Gramsci A, Togliatti P (1926) The Italian situation and the tasks of the PCI. In Hoare Q (1978)Antonio Gramsci: Selections from Political Writings (1921-1926). London: Lawrence & Wishart. 
36 Gramsci A (1921) Referendum. L’Ordine Nuovo, 29 June. 
37 Gramsci A, Togliatti P (1926) op. cit. 
38 Gramsci A (1920) Questions of culture. Avanti, 14 June. 
39 Gramsci A (1925) Introduction to the first course of the party school. In Hoare Q (1978)Antonio Gramsci: Selections from Political Writings (1921-1926). London: Lawrence & Wishart. 
40 Gramsci A (1985) Prison writings. In Forgacs D (ed.) An Antonio Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings. New York: Schocken Books. 
41 ibid. 
42 Gramsci A (1926) Some aspects of the Southern question. In Hoare Q (1978) Antonio Gramsci: Selections from Political Writings (1921-1926). London: Lawrence & Wishart. 
43 Gramsci A. (1985) Prison writings. In Forgacs D (ed.) An Antonio Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings. New York: Schocken Books. 
44 ibid. 
45 Althusser L (ed.) (1971) Ideology and ideological state apparatuses: some notes towards an investigation. In Althusser L (1971) Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. London: New Left Books, pp. 127—86. 
46 Hoxha E (1978) Imperialism and the Revolution. Tirana: 8 Nentori. 
47 Hoxha E (1986) The Superpowers. Tirana: 8 Nentori. 
48 ibid. 
49 Hoxha E (1960) Reject the Revisionist Theses of the XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Anti-Marxist Stand of Krushchev’s Group! Uphold Marxism-Leninism! In Hoxha E (1972) The Party of Labor of Albania in Battle with Modern Revisionism. Tirana: Naim Frasheri. 
50 Hoxha E (1978) Imperialism and the Revolution. Tirana: 8 Nentori. 
51 Hoxha E (1977) Report on the Activity of the Central Committee of the Party of Labour of Albania. Tirana: 8 Nentori. 
52 Hoxha E (1978) Imperialism and the Revolution. Tirana: 8 Nentori. 
53 ibid. 
54 ibid. 
55 ibid. 
56 Hoxha E (1980) Eurocommunism is Anticommunism. Tirana: 8 Nentori. 
57 ibid. 
58 ibid. 
59 ibid. 
60 Kim Jong Il (1990) On some problems of the ideological foundation of socialism. Speech delivered to the senior officials of the Central Committee of the Worker’s Party of Korea, 30 May. 
61 Kim Jong Il (1996) The Juche philosophy is an original revolutionary philosophy. Kulloja 26 July. 
62 Kim Jong Il (1982) On the Juche Idea. Study sent to the National Seminar on the Juche Idea to mark the 70th anniversary of the birth of Kim Il Sung. 
63 Kim Il Sung (1955) About driving away dogmatism and formalism from ideological activities and establishing a Juche. Speech to ideological workers, 28 December. 
64 Independent economy of Korea. KCNA report dated 12 March 2003, cited in Independence Star, publication of the Juche Idea Study Group of England (unnumbered). 
65 Self-reliance, Korea’s mode of struggle. KCNA report dated 17 March 2003, cited inIndependence Star, publication of the Juche Idea Study Group of England (unnumbered). 
66 Bakunin M (1869) Where I stand. In Aldred GA (1972) Bakunin’s Writings. New York: Kraus. 
67 Bakunin M (1871) Politics and the state. In Aldred GA (1972) Bakunin’s Writings. New York: Kraus. 
68 Bakunin M (1871) The Paris Commune and the Idea of the State. New York: Knopf. 
69 Bakunin M (1869) On education. L’Egalité, 31 July. 
70 Bakunin, M (1866) Revolutionary catechism. In Dolgoff S (1972) Bakunin On Anarchy: Selected Works by the Activist Father of World Anarchism. New York: Knopf. 
71 Bakunin M (1870) On representative government and universal suffrage. In Dolgoff S (1972)Bakunin on Anarchy: Selected Works by the Activist Father of World Anarchism. New York, AA Knopf. 
72 Kropotkin P (1897/1946) The State: Its Historic Role. London: Freedom Press. 
73 Kropotkin P (1906) The Conquest of Bread. GP Putnam’s Sons: New York and London. 
74 ibid. 
75 ibid. 
76 ibid. 
77 Malatesta E (n.d.) Towards anarchism. In Graham M (ed.) (1974) Man! London: Cienfuegos Press, pp. 73—8. 
78 Bakunin M (1873) Statism and anarchy. In Dolgoff S (1972). Bakunin On Anarchy: Selected works by the activist father of world anarchism. New York: Knopf. 
79 Bakunin M (1872) On the International Workingmen’s Association and Karl Marx. In Dolgoff S (1972). Bakunin On Anarchy: Selected works by the activist father of world anarchism. New York: Knopf. 
80 Goldman E (1911) Socialism: caught in the political trap. In Shulman AK (1972) Red Emma Speaks: An Emma Goldman Reader. New York: Vintage Books. 
81 Peter Kropotkin (1895) ‘Proposed communist settlement: a new colony for Tyneside or Wearside’, The Newcastle Daily Chronicle (20 February), p. 4. 
82 Michael D (2003) A new land, a new life, a new hope. Voice of the Resistance 2, pp. 17—24. 
83 Malatesta E (n.d.) Towards Anarchism. In Graham M (ed.) (1974) Man! London: Cienfuegos Press, London, pp. 73—8. 
84 Adolf Hitler (1924/2000, op. cit.) 
85 Southgate T (2002) Transcending the beyond. From Third Position to national-anarchism.Pravda.ru
(http://english.pravda.ru/politics/2002/01/17/25828.html) (22 May 2003).

No comments:

Post a Comment