Anarchists = Internationalists?

It's been awhile.

So are most anarchists internationalists? Meaning do they believe that global capitalism must fall in order for a communist society to be created? Or do they feel that they can create small pockets of statelessness/no hierarchy/etc?

Does this differ between Anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-communists, minarchists, etc?

Anarchism is internationalist, there's no debate over it.


Minarchism isn't anarchism, it's laissez-faire capitalism

I'd have to say almost all anarchists are internationalists. They want the devastation of the capitalist system and destruction of all states and all class systems. I'm an internationalist, I want capitalism to doe, socialism to reign worldwide. People shouldn't be shackled by economic chains and should be allowed to move about freely, everyone should be allowed to freely associate and dissassociate in the society that thry help comprise. Fuck all artificial and harmful borders and fuck coercive authority

I only support anarchy in one country.

Which is better than socialism in one country? What am I missing?

All anarchists are internationalists, but...
...I'd say this is a fairly accurate statement. It stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a state. Federated social organization is not synonymous with statelessness.

I'd rather not get into another crappy discussion on the state but...

is wrong. No anarchist has ever stated a federated social organisation is synonymous with statelessness. In fact you can claim the USA is a form of federated social organisation, same too with Switzerland.

I'm sorry to say, but there have been many anarchists who have stated such an opinion on this very site, numerous times. Regardless, the notion that you can achieve statelessness within the confines of an isolated area, surrounded by hostile states (for an example the notion that the Makhnovista achieved statelessness in the 'free territory') is what I was criticizing. I really should have used the term decentralized social organization, not federated, but the point the stands.

I don't give a toss what some unknown randomer says online. If the basis of your claim is what some randomer says online you don't really have a leg to stand on do you?

What you're claiming does not conform with the movement of which i am a part of.

How can someone claim the black army achieved statelessness when it was in the midst of a civil war and was subsequently destroyed? Fuck me, they fought the whites!

Further, "decentralised social organisation" has the same problem as the federal one... Athens in classical antiquity was no doubt decentralised, it engaged in direct democracy yet it remained a state.


You were trying to criticise anarchism by making a strawman, don't pretend you were doing anything different.

Thanks for all the replies. I suspected that anarchists would implicitly be internationalists (it makes sense), but as Old Bull lee stated:

That some anarchists (here and elsewhere) have suggested that decentralized social organizations are almost an end in themselves is what confused me.

Chill out. Some anarchists (even if they aren't "true anarchists" or whatever) do make statements that sometimes appear to suggest that. I don't think anyone is attacking you. a simple explanation is all that's necessary.

Nope, I'm sorry but that is not what I was up to at all. Many anarchists uphold this notion, including the few I've met at demos or through organizing. You can rage all you like, but unless you think that statelessness can be achieved within isolation, you implicitly subscribe to the notion of a transitional state.

Your argument definitely does stand true to some anarchists, but not all. I'm still at times wavering between a botched conception of the DotP (my own personal trimmings added) and freely associating and decentralized organizations which in themselves can become nascent states. I'm doing a lot of powering through theory in both anarchism and Marxism. Some anarchists are definitely closer to Marxists and vice versa

Oh yes, many anarchists, all the ones you've met no doubt. I'd maintain that, supposing the existence of these people, they lack a sophisticated understanding of reality and the political movement they associate with.




nope. I don't think statelessness can be achieved in isolation (it necessitates classlessness obviously and for that it has to be global due to the international nature of capitalism) and i don't subscribe to the notion of a transitional state. You're creating a false dichotomy based upon trying to force my understanding of the state into what i assume is your notion, a fundamentally reductionist one, of 'one class to repress another'. But of course that's not sufficient.

If statelessness cannot be established within isolation, then proletarian revolution would have to be instantaneously global. That's the only fashion within which the anarchist conception of immediate transition into statelessness could possibly uphold theoretical scrutiny.

Socialism in one country is an impossibility for various reasons which include the fact that socialism is statelessness and classlessness, socialism must be a globalized system like capitalism is, and the fact that a socialist state is an oxymoron. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, while a feasible idea, is fraught with it's own problems, and in practice it's shown itself to be very risky and prone to opportunism. Anarchy in isolation would be just as risky because this in itself could become a state and use anarchist rhetoric much like communist rhetoric was used by the Bolshevik party in the Soviet Union to dupe and confuse the masses. A social revolution must be able to expand and keep spreading because stagnation could lead to it's failure, it has to keep spreading until it encompasses the globe. Centralization in itself has it's pros and cons, and likewise with decentralization. Anarchists and communists need to both be able to agitate and educate other workers so that the revolution can keep moving forward. While the DotP with it's centralized state ran by a Vanguard Party with the Proletariat at it's heart can be very dangerous in practice, so can the direct revolution of anarchists establishing decentralized and freely associating organs. The direct revolutionary method is just as prone to errors and dangers as the DotP is and to state that it isn't as dangerous is idealistic in itself. The freely associating organizations would need to set up systems of checks and balances and would need to use authority when necessary to protect from reactionary forces and counterrevolution.

Originally I had more of a direction to this but I keep fucking getting interrupted so I hope I got my point at least vaguely across...

It's a little known fact that Stalin initially pushed for anarchy in the SU and was friends with Mahkno.

Anarchy can liberate areas and individuals from the state apparatus, but it's a hostile existence with states around. It is in the best interest of a state to bring the area under it's domination, to support it's existence. At the same time it is in the best interest of the anarchist to agitate against any state, hierarchy, authority, ect... to ensure their existence or push toward anarchy/liberation. As long as there is a state, any state, anarchists will agitate against it. Same goes for any other forms of authority or organization, based on the anarchist's beliefs.

Minarchists, however, just seem to be capitalists pushing to replace government activity, with private activity. In other words no cops under UK law, or whatever, but cops under the Black Water law code, or whatever weird law system they come up with. They're the scum that promotes private activity as a form of empowering the individual, which sounds good to the ears of many individuals, but comes up as bullshit. Most people aren't property or business owners, and those that are most likely suck. Based on how private entities operate, there is no individual in a privately run society.

You realize that anarchy/socialism/communism are all essentially synonymous right? They are classless, stateless societies of free producers. There is a glaring contradiction here. You start your post off by saying socialism in one country can't work, then go on to speak of anarchy in isolation. If socialism cannot be established within the confines of a specific area, neither can anarchy. And this is what the issue boils down to: either you believe anarchy/socialism can be established in isolated areas, or you believe that the revolution will be instantaneously global; there is absolutely no other situation in which the immediate transition into statelessness could be established.

This is a stupid discussion. History demonstrates that anarchism can be established "in isolation." The question isn't whether it can be established, the question is whether it can be defended and maintained.

Probably.

I don't think this is what "internationalism" means, and I fear that most anarchists (and most people in general) would not take it as meaning that.

If we read their opinions on the Soviet Union and what went wrong with it, for instance, they rarely factor the failure of international revolution among the causes.

Seems a quite widespread belief among anarchists.

Minarchists are anarchists?

Luís Henrique

Isn't that the case of most anarchists and Marxists? And, to be fair, of most sociademocrats, liberals, Stalinists, conservatives, libertarians, fascists, whateverists?

So, suppose that an international revolutionary wave starts soon into the future. Suppose that, in the wake of it, workers are able to destroy the bourgeois State, say, in Argentina, Canada, Uganda, France, and Pakistan - but that they fail to do the same in Brazil, the US, Kenya, Germany, and India. What should the workers in the former set of countries do, now that they have to face armed intervention from the latter States?

Luís Henrique

Well, it was an abbreviated definition because I just assumed that most people would know what I mean.


So would you say that anarchism in general promotes "anarchism in one country," or at least that it's a viable alternate to toppling global capitalism?

Ummmm.... maybe the irony.
God I hate this place.

No, I wouldn't say that.

I don't understand. Do you mean alternative? If so, alternative to what?

Indeed there are many examples of Anarchist societies existing in isolation. Basically what Marx called primitive Communism. The question is more on how to expand Communism and maintain it within a country without descending into bureaucracy.

Anarchy opposes imposed authority in all its forms.

TAT/STFU says that anarchism can be established in one country but that the main question is whether or not it can be defended/maintained. If anarchy is unable to defend itself against capital, then it is unable to oppose the imposition of authority that necessarily arises out of capital's dominion. Therefore, anarchism in any situation where it cannot defend itself socially and politically against outside threats is not really capable of being established beyond a most primitive basis, which makes such a strategy foolish and prone to failure.

The same could be said of Marxism or liberal democracy. I don't think it's unique or specific to anarchy.

It's not, but this thread is about anarchism...

Well, liberal democracy doesn't need to be defended against capital - at least not in the same way as socialism/communism/anarchy.

And Marxism provides a direct answer to the question - transitional States. You may dislike it, but it is there. Anarchism has the problem that it leads to either considering anarchy sustainable in a less than global level, or considering any destruction of the bourgeois State that is not unimpeachably international a failure. Unless, of course, some kind of transitional State is reintroduced.

Luís Henrique

I mean to ask if anarchism sees "pockets of anarchism/statelessness" as viable alternatives to global communism?

You rightly said that history has shown that anarchism "in isolation" is possible, but it has to be maintained/defended. But do you mean maintained in order to spread to the rest of the world, or just maintained for its own sake?

I don't think that there's an inherent connection between anarchism and internationalism. I understand 'anarchism' to be opposition to authority or the initiation of coercion and force and 'internationalism' to be support for an integrated global society or at least cooperation and solidarity between distinct nations. I don't understand why supporting one necessarily requires supporting the other.

I like the idea that I'm a citizen of the universe and all sentient beings are my people. I would rather say 'universe' than 'world' because there could be sentient beings from other planets and galaxies, even if there aren't.