Anarchy First or Progressive Universalism First?

The two articles from Center for a Stateless Society linked to below illustrate very well the primary basis of the conflict between myself and the mainstream left-anarchist milieu. The first article calls for the creation of more nations, but only if they all have a liberal government, and only if they eventually join a world government to fight climate change. The second article opposes secessionist movements in North America because some of the secessionists might do something un-progressive. This is why I have long made the argument that the anarchist idea of dispersing political, economic, and cultural power is not compatible with the progressive universalism to which most anarchists subscribe.

It should go without saying that anarchism is incompatible with a global superstate. Anyone who doesn’t understand that is out of the game before it begins. It should also be recognized that a global anti-imperialist struggle against both actually existing states, the wider neoliberal imperial system of which they are components, or some future superstate will naturally require the participation of an infinite variety of people and groups will all kinds of beliefs, philosophies, ways of life, cultural practices, traditions, etc., some of which are not exactly “progressive” and others of which are super un-progressive. The influence of Noam “I’d like to see the power of the federal government increased” Chomsky on North American anarchism aside, a continental imperium is not exactly consistent with anarchism either. Regrettably, for many of these “anarchists,” anarchism is merely a euphemism for “anti-cultural conservatism.”

Should Today’s 193 Nations Divide Into 1600?

Autonomy Versus Secession


Categories: Anarchism/Anti-State

Leave a Reply