A brief article by Tommy Lawson discussing how an anarchist’s understanding of nationalism must be nuanced in the context of imperialism, and how simplistic devotion to the rejection of nationalist ideal of oppressed people would weaken the global resistance against reactionary forces.
These organizations are struggling with internal divisions and seem to have chosen to communicate only general but widely agreed on positions to avoid those internal divisions ripping them apart.
I think an organization needs to be self-aware of its own internal struggles and also its limited reach. The leaders of the climate movement (Greta Thunberg et al.) seem to be not, and as a result the voiced support for the Palestinian struggle is causing serious internal rifts right now.
The OP article raises some good question, but I think the end very clearly gives it away where they stand. But while this is a reasonable decision to take as an individual, organizations often have to live with strategic ambiguities to not endanger their existence over topics that are maybe related but not part of their core reason for existence.
Shout out for Albert Meltzer who is quoted in the article. You can find his biography free online. He is an [email protected] celebrity.
“The struggle must be against Imperialism first, against Zionism secondly, and lastly against the bourgeois nationalist government when created.”
– Albert Meltzer 1939, Anarchist Tactic for Palestine
