«I am no longer an anarchist». Mikalai Dziadok — on prison, God, and disillusionment with ideologies

Mikalai Dziadok. Photo: «Viasna»

For many years, Mikalai Dziadok was called a leader and one of the symbols of the Belarusian anarchist movement. He himself says: this role was largely «assigned» to him by the media because he was one of the few anarchists who publicly and consistently spoke about his beliefs.

He had to pay for this: detentions, arrests, provocations, a beating in 2017 after the «parasite marches», two prison terms.

Today Mikalai Dziadok no longer calls himself an anarchist. No, he did not suddenly «fall in love with the state, hierarchy, and violence», as he ironically puts it. This is all because he stopped believing in political ideologies as a tool capable of explaining and changing the world.

We spoke with Mikalai about when his first rift with anarchism occurred, how prison broadened his worldview, what annoys him about modern left-wing movements, and what he calls himself now.

«Prison forcibly pulled me out of my information bubble»

«Nasha Niva»: Mikalai, for many years you were perceived as one of the symbols of the Belarusian anarchist movement. When did you first feel that the word «anarchist» no longer fully described you?

MD: It didn't happen all at once. The process took several years.

I think it began during the period between my two prison terms, when I was studying at EHU and first heard in class that any ideology is a simplification of reality.

At first, I continued to think: yes, my ideology also simplifies reality, but it's still the most correct, the best simplification. Then doubts began to arise. The last prison term became a strong lead-up to the decision. And what happened afterward — my ideological evolution, observations, relationship with the anarchist movement — became the final chord.

Павялічыць

Mikalai Dziadok (center) after his first term with students of the European Humanities University who fought for his release. On the left is Dzianis Kuchynski, current advisor to Tsikhanouskaya.

Besides studying at EHU, there were other specific moments. For example, I listen to a podcast by American anarchists. And the anarchist movement has always positioned itself as international, transnational. And so a girl in the podcast says: we don't recognize Bakunin and Kropotkin and are not going to read them because they are white men.

I listen and understand: she calls herself an anarchist, I call myself an anarchist, but for me, what she says is absolute savagery. For me, the basis of anarchism was not to judge people by the color of their skin, let alone by gender.

Or another example. I was talking to a young anarchist guy from the USA. He says: in a future anarchist society, we will ban anime because, in his opinion, it promotes violence against women.

And I started to think: do we even share one movement, one ideology with these people? Or perhaps even our common values are already in question?

«NN»: How did your last prison term affect your views?

MD: I didn't learn anything fundamentally new about power, hierarchy, and the state during my second term. My aversion to them only intensified.

If anyone thinks that while in captivity, I suddenly started to believe that hierarchy and violence are cool and necessary, then, of course not. The exact opposite process occurred.

Павялічыць

Mikalai Dziadok in court in June 2021. Photo: «Novy Chas»

But prison indeed influenced my ideological evolution. It forcibly broadened my horizons.

In prison, you start interacting with people you would never interact with on the outside. You read books you never read before. You step outside your information bubble.

If you're an anarchist, you read anarchist books, watch anarchist videos, talk to anarchists. You constantly reinforce your existing ideological baggage and cultural code.

But in prison, this expands beyond your will.

And I realized that what I want to achieve, my understanding of a better world, is much broader than anarchism can explain. And not just anarchism, but any political ideology in general.

«NN»: So, you came not just to disillusionment with anarchism, but to distrust of ideologies in general?

MD: My criticisms are not specifically aimed at anarchism. It's far from the worst option for transforming reality. My criticisms are now generally directed at political ideologies.

Political ideologies are children of the Enlightenment era. They emerged in the second half of the 19th century alongside industrialization. That's when the well-known triad appeared: conservatism, liberalism, socialism. Then they branched out and mixed with each other. Socialism split into state socialism — USSR, Cuba, North Korea — and the anarchist current.

But when I look at the role ideologies play in the modern world, I don't see a single one that offers a clear and plausible picture for solving contemporary problems.

The world is so dynamic, technological and social changes happen so quickly, that any ideology becomes obsolete almost as soon as it appears.

I've come to the conclusion that the average lifespan of an ideology today is 10-20 years. After that, it inevitably becomes obsolete. Therefore, there's no point clinging to an ideology. The world will change before you manage to implement it.

It makes sense to hold onto values.

When I say that I no longer call myself an anarchist, it doesn't mean that I've come to love hierarchy, violence, and the state. What was important to me before is still important. But I've become disillusioned with the possibility of achieving a better world exclusively through political methods and exclusively through political ideologies.

Today, anyone who strictly calls themselves a liberal, communist, fascist, socialist, or anarchist is, for me, something like a re-enactor. Just as there are historical re-enactors who recreate the knightly period, Napoleonic wars, or antiquity. It's the same with political labels.

Павялічыць

Mikalai Dziadok on the second day after his release. Video screenshot: svetlana_tsikhanouskaya / YouTube

Any political practice you engage in today, striving to change something, will be so far from a «pure» ideology that clinging to these labels is simply engaging in re-enactment.

«NN»: At the core of anarchism is a strong belief in humanity: that people can agree, self-organize, and don't necessarily need a stick from above. After prison, where you saw human nature in its various manifestations, has this belief remained with you?

MD: I would say it has strengthened. When you're among people who are, frankly, not the best representatives of the human race — murderers, rapists — when you are forced to interact with them and see the worst sides of human nature day in and day out, it's very easy to become a misanthrope.

Many people come to the conclusion: man is a wolf to man, people need a stick, otherwise everyone will start deceiving, killing each other, and so on.

No such deformation happened to me. Rather, the opposite. I tried to see something different: how people from whom, it seemed, you wouldn't expect anything good, demonstrated their best qualities. For example, there was a man convicted of murder. And I saw how, in a situation of choice, he sacrificed his interests for my sake.

There were cases when a man from the system, a cop through and through, looked around to make sure no one was near, and told me: «Hold on, strength to you for what you're enduring».

Such cases happened more than once or twice. Therefore, my faith in people has not suffered in any way.

Moreover, the charge of faith in people, in Belarusians, and in self-organization that I received in 2020 has remained to this day. Even the dirt I saw after my release, the turn from inspiration and solidarity to nitpicking and mutual hatred, did not dishearten me. Belarusians are capable of living, if not entirely without a state, then at least with a minimum of hierarchical control.

«NN»: Anarchism often sets a very high moral bar: not to cooperate with the system, not to compromise. Have you become less categorical on these issues?

MD: Prison, especially the last term, taught me to judge less. It shifted my worldview very strongly in a religious direction. Not in the sense of performing rituals, but in the sense of how I see the world, cause-and-effect relationships, the history of humanity.

I still believe in a society without human rule over humans. But now I believe that such a society is only possible in a global world. It cannot be that one large human community lives without a state, while all around it are states. This is the main theoretical and practical drawback of anarchism.

Secondly, I became convinced, analyzing past liberation movements, that the building of a free, just society is only possible based on some form of spirituality. By removing God from this equation, you will achieve nothing. Examples of socialist utopias confirm this well: they removed God — and as a result, got totalitarianism.

As a Christian, I adhere to Christian spirituality, but I believe that any spirituality is better than its absence. I am calm about other religions, especially Abrahamic ones.

To build relationships between people according to high ideals, one must understand that man is part of something greater.

And precisely because I try to judge people as little as possible, I wouldn't want to comment on some interviews of other former political prisoners. Although, having read some things, I felt tremendous shame and disgust.

Even during my first term, I came to the conclusion that anarchism and Christianity actually combine very well. Although I never called myself an anarcho-Christian. I was an anarchist and I am a Christian.

If we all live according to the Christian commandments laid out by Jesus Christ, that will be the best society possible. If we do not respond to violence with violence, if we do not judge one another, and if we love our neighbor as ourselves.

This is, of course, a bar of colossal height. Perhaps we will not reach it in my lifetime, nor in yours. But this is the only ideal worth striving for.

«I am a Christian and a radical humanist»

«NN»: If you are no longer an anarchist, then who are you? How would you define your current system of coordinates?

MD: One must understand that anarchist is an identity around which my entire personality was built for many years.

I went with it for 22-23 years. For this identity, for this label, I suffered in prisons, did an endless number of things, spent an endless amount of energy. This is a part of me that will never disappear. Giving up this label cost me great effort and a long time.

I won't discard this part of myself and say: that's it, this is no longer me. I would say this: I took this label, removed it from myself, and set it aside. I'm not throwing it away.

But I understand that the anarchism I believed in when I was 15 years old, and today's anarchism as most anarchists around the world see it — these are different things.

Anarchism has in many ways turned into its own opposite. It's no longer what once attracted me. Not only have I changed — anarchism has changed too. Its discourse, its ideological vector has shifted very significantly over these 22 years. And what it represents now — that's not for me.

I don't want to attach myself to ideologies. But if I need to wear some label so people can categorize me, let it be: Christian and radical humanist.

Павялічыць

Mikalai Dziadok speaking at the Night of Executed Poets. Photo: «Belsat»

«I came to anarchism for personal freedom. But now I see new forms of control there»

«NN»: You say that modern anarchism has become alien to you. What in it is still close to you, and with what do you fundamentally disagree today?

MD: What has remained unchanged is my belief in personal freedom. Human freedom is primary for me.

Anarcho-communism, as the classic and probably most popular form of anarchism, aims to build a free society without a state and without human rule over humans — based on self-governing communities. This ideology took shape together with the organized workers' movement in the 1860s in Europe. About 170 years have passed. And nowhere in the world has a stable, long-lasting model of society corresponding to this canon been built.

This means there's a problem. Not just «it didn't work this time» or «circumstances interfered.» There's a systemic flaw that needs to be corrected.

Or we must admit that a society without human rule over humans is fundamentally impossible, because people need a stick. But I will never admit that. Because there is too much real evidence that this is not the case.

We see anarchic social forms every day — self-governing communities all around us, especially online. They work, often effectively. But building something like this over a large territory and for a long time has not yet succeeded. So, we need to ask: maybe we are going the wrong way?

And here's an important point for me. In the old philosophical dispute between idealists and materialists — what is primary: the social environment or the internal impulse of man, being or consciousness — I have sided with the idealists. All changes for the better are born first in the human heart and are made by human will.

And it is precisely here that I strongly diverge from modern left-liberal anarchism, where often only the environment is to blame for everything. A person committed murder — meaning the environment pushed them to it. I acknowledge that the environment influences, and influences significantly. But the final decision — to be on the side of good or on the side of evil — is always up to the individual.

Another point of divergence for me is in the attitude towards personal freedom. After my first term, I saw that anarchism had strongly shifted towards not entirely adequate forms of feminism, not entirely adequate forms of anti-racism, with all these wild concepts like cultural appropriation.

When I hear that someone might not be allowed into an anarchist event because they have a mohawk or dreadlocks, because «you are not a representative of an oppressed people and have no right to wear that,» I find it laughable. In Homiel in the 2000s, my friends could get beaten by hooligans for a mohawk. And in 2026, anarchists might not let you into their event for a mohawk.

But what about personal freedom? Can a person not do what they want with their body, with their hairstyle? It's not about mohawks or dreadlocks. It's about a mindset. These people believe that personal freedom can be restricted for the sake of their ideological dogmas. I don't believe that.

For me, human freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of speech come first. Even if freedom of speech can hurt or offend someone. I believe it's better to err on the side of free speech and suffer some insults from those who abuse it, than to restrict it and come to a dictatorship.

I came to anarchism precisely for personal freedom, living in a conservative post-Soviet society where you could be beaten on the street just for long hair, because you stood out from the crowd. But now I see that in an anarchist environment, for standing out, you might not be physically beaten, but morally ostracized. This is absolutely not what I came for.

«NN»: Some of your former associates might perceive your departure from anarchism as a betrayal. What would you say to the accusation «Dziadok is not who he used to be»?

MD: I don't want to support the Belarusian tradition where a person, upon leaving an organization or movement, immediately starts slandering that movement. Belarusian anarchists, my comrades in the movement, did a lot for me. They supported me in many ways. For that, I am very grateful to them.

But as of today, such a subject as the anarchist movement of Belarus does not exist. There is no political subject. There are people who call themselves Belarusian anarchists. Some of them are in prison, some are in emigration. But there is no political subject.

But I would like to promote my values — Christian, humanist — at the political level. I would like to move in a political direction.

The anarchist communities of Belarus do not want this. They don't need it. So, we simply went our separate ways. They remained where they want to be, and I went where I want to be: into attempts to participate in Belarusian politics, so that these values do not remain in the margins of a subculture or semi-underground movement, but are voiced loudly and brought to life.

Павялічыць

Mikalai Dziadok in Vilnius, September 14, 2025. Photo: spring96.org

«NN»: What would you say to young Belarusians today who are looking for a «pure ideology» that will explain everything and provide answers?

MD: I would tell them: any ideology you cling to will sooner or later disappoint you.

The surrounding world is much more complex than we can imagine. There isn't, and likely won't be, an ideology that can fully describe the world.

Don't cling to ideology. It will become obsolete and inevitably disappoint you. It only fails to disappoint short-sighted people who are willing to cut off entire layers of reality from themselves for decades and see only what they want to see.

Find the right set of values. For me, these are the values laid out by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Find a basic understanding of what is good and what is bad. And measure all your political and life actions against it. Then you won't go wrong.

«I am an idealist. But that doesn't mean I'm a deluded dreamer»

«NN»: You say you want to promote your ideas at the political level. What, in your imagination, should the Belarus of the future be like?

MD: I would like the Belarus of the future to be not just a liberal-democratic and independent country. I would like it to be a model for the whole world in how civil society works and how citizens treat each other.

I agree to a state, but I would like it to occupy as little space as possible in social, political, and economic life. So that hierarchical regulation applies to a minimal sector of public life: defense, law and order, and partially economic regulation. Without this, it's also impossible, because capitalism tends to move towards a colossal concentration of money and resources in the hands of a few. As a result, this is bad for both society and the individual.

We see how multinational corporations concentrate such an amount of power and resources that they can often dictate their will to national states. This is also not normal. It smacks of technofascism.

I see the Belarus of the future as a country where the vast majority of social and political issues are resolved by democratic institutions. Where direct democracy is widely practiced through electronic resources. Where every person participates in the maximum number of self-governing grassroots associations, as is the case in Switzerland and developed countries of Western Europe.

Where issues concerning individuals are resolved at the municipal self-government level. Where politicians and all who make decisions at the national level are fully accountable, and their activities are transparent.

Where there is the widest possible field for freedom of speech. Where those who shout: «Forbid it, because I am offended» are not listened to. Let a thousand flowers bloom, let a thousand schools contend. Forgive me for quoting Mao Zedong here.

And, of course, it is very important for society and the state to combat the effect of cumulative advantage: when money goes to money, influence — to influence. Because the concentration of colossal resources in the hands of a few is a danger to democracy.

I want foreigners to come to Belarus and say: «Why do you have such lenient laws, yet so few crimes?»

For people to walk all day through Minsk and not see a single homeless person, not a single person with alcohol addiction outside a store. And not because the police cleared them all out and imprisoned them, but because such people simply don't exist.

And, of course, the foundation — Belarus as part of the European family of nations, in the European Union and NATO.

«NN»: Sounds a bit utopian.

MD: If 150 years ago you took any peasant in Europe or the Russian Empire and told him: in 150 years you will elect your own tsar, he would have thought you were crazy.

If you told women 100-150 years ago that they would publicly discuss nuances of their physiology, sexual matters, domestic violence, and no one would shame them for it, they would also think you were delirious.

If you told Black people in the USA 200 years ago that a Black person would become president of the USA, the effect would be the same.

I am an idealist. But that doesn't mean I'm a deluded dreamer who doesn't see reality. Idealism and realism don't contradict each other. Moreover, I have enough political practice and experience not to live in cloud castles.

I see the direction of humanity's development. And what I've described — it's not just possible. Most likely, this is our future. The only question is how quickly we will get there.

Of course, we won't get there easily. There will be blood, pain, suffering, setbacks. We already see the erosion of democracy in some countries. But the general direction of human development shows: we are moving approximately in this vector. Everything is in our hands.

The structures currently being built by Belarusian democratic forces in exile also work in this direction. I would say that the Coordination Council, for example, is the best possible thing that can currently be attempted in the direction of building democratic institutions and teaching Belarusians to live in a democracy.

I understand all the shortcomings. I see that much does not turn out as one would wish. But despite all the shortcomings, this is the best possible.

These efforts must be supported, nurtured, and fostered, investing our energy and strength into them. Because this will only work as long as we ourselves want to play this game.

If one by one people start saying: «Oh, not interesting, oh, I don't want to,» — there will be no game.

• 69
• 2
• 2
• 7
• 1
• 0
• 0
• 5