Anarchist practice is localist and anarchist theory has generally followed in its disregard for the structures of global politics and the ways in which these undermine the possibility of the anarchist ideals. In this paper I set out one set of reasons as to why this state of affairs has come about and go back to the origins of anarchist thought to see if we can make sense of this contemporary context. I argue that a better understanding, a founding schism between Proudhon’s revolutionary conservatism and Bakunin’s revolutionary pan-Slavism can help us think through how we might consider ‘the international’ with greater sophistication vis-à-vis anarchist praxis. What I will argue is that Bakunin’s position has stood the test of time within the anarchist movement, but that this is an unfortunate and counterproductive state of affairs.
|Publication status||Published - 2010|
Bibliographical noteThe full text of this item is not available from the repository.
- international relations
- balance of power
- revolutionary nationalism