So clear an explanation of Liberalism has been needed (by me, at least) for a long time. The connection internationally of Anarchism across time and space was affirming of its roots in an order that is quintessentially human in scale and quality.
I think I have been an accidental anarchist in that it illuminated some rather muddy thoughts that had been sloshing around my mind for some time and I am coming across others on Substack who are similarly tripping over this bright lodestone and I tend to point them in your direction.
A bit like 'Degrowth', Anarchism has a shock value that tends to unsettle people without a knowledge of its precepts but there are a lot more out there who would agree wholeheartedly with those precepts without realising they had a home.
The problem is that phrasing things as “colonialism” masks the truth of what colonialism intends—primitive accumulation. At that, the discussion tends to devolve into a discussion of rights and democracies, rather expansion of capital the only it’s ever been profitable, through transforming primitive accumulation with free or slave labor into commodities, discounting the underlying value or (in the case of oil, the danger). of primitive resources to begin with.
I’m pretty firmly anti-capitalist but I’m a very top-down thinker so it’s tricky for me to ease into more practical political approaches. This was a very good introduction, thank you. Any recommendations for getting more into pragmatic revolutionary politics?
I have a few go-to’s for introductory purposes, but keep in mind that there is a lot out there, and once you get started, there's a lot of ground to cover.
Jane McAlevey, “No Shortcuts” (2016) and “A Collective Bargain” (2020) for organizing as a craft.
Mark & Paul Engler, “This Is an Uprising” (2016) for campaign strategy and mass action.
Errico Malatesta, “Anarchy” + “At the Café” for short, grounded anarchist strategy.
For “structure without becoming the state”: The Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Dielo Truda, 1926) + FARJ, Social Anarchism and Organisation (2008).
While I appreciate the author's concerns, supporting governments is essential to instituting reforms. Governments are supposed to protect people, and without such we would still ruled... only then it would be by far less accountable warlords. I'm sure anarchists who feel the need to write something like this would far prefer to live under any government than that.
The false dichotomy of Warlords or the State is one I might have fallen for if nobody had ever written about, or built dual power throughout human history.
But the fact is that human history is rife with examples of regions (not just small communities) that have functioned perfectly well without the need for centralised or hierarchical control under.
I did look three of what you describe as "regions (not just small communities)". The flaw in your argument here is that despite these being technically regions, they are basically all tribal groups... far, far smaller geographically than nearly any modern nation.
I was taught in sociology that you can pull off things in tribal groups that simply aren't possible in larger societies. For example, a single family can be well established throughout the entire area of a tribe, while such is impossible in the much larger territory of a modern nation. A dominant family is typically not so representative of the people... it's the blood relation based faction highest up on the "food chain". Saddam Hussein ran Iraq this way... he literally came from a tribe, established it as the dominant one in the Iraqi coalition government. He was fairly popular (though still feared) because he made certain that food and other essentials made their way to all the lesser tribes.
Even your example of Somali pastoral clans (one of your largest regions) is but a fraction of the moderately sized nation of Somalia, which is presently without a government and run by warlords.
I do appreciate your reference to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. It was a coalition of tribes and as such encompassed a rather large area (perhaps roughly equal to present day NY state?). But still, the foundations were tribal.
Calling these “tribal” is doing two kinds of reduction at once.
First, it’s a category mistake. Some of what I listed are kin structured societies, some are confederacies, some are commons-governance regimes, some are stateless legal orders, some are federations of federations. Collapsing all of that into “tribal” is basically a way of saying “pre-modern” or “not real politics,” which is a colonial habit of mind, not an argument.
Second, it smuggles in a very specific story about scale. It's a way of that the only way large-scale coordination can work is a centralized state, and anything else either “doesn’t scale” or "turns into warlords". That’s not sociology, that’s a modern state’s self-justification. Scale is not just land area or population size. Scale is logistics, legitimacy, conflict-resolution capacity, institutional layering, and the ability to coordinate across distance without a monopoly center. Federations, confederations, nested councils, customary law, rotating leadership, and polycentric commons governance are literally ways humans have solved scale. Which is why I gave the examples I did.
Also, “blood ties” is not a disqualifier, it’s a constraint. Modern states simply replace blood relations with other factions: parties, security services, donor networks, corporate lobbies, professional-managerial pipelines. It’s still factional power. It just wears suits.
And Somalia is a great example of how shallow the “warlords vs government” framing is. Collapse of a central state does not mean absence of governance, it means contested governance, layered governance, and often external interference shaping which factions can dominate. If your only lens is “state = order,” you miss most of what is actually happening on the ground.
So yes, if the bar is “a Westphalian nation-state with a capital city and ministries,” then anything else gets dismissed by definition. But that’s the whole point... that bar is ideological. It’s not a neutral measure of what humans can do.
OK, I'll admit I find it somewhat difficult to follow your explanations though I do believe you've made a sincere effort. It appears you've done more research than I and I don't at this time have the energy to look deeper.
I have studied the ancient Iroquois confederation and consider it admirable and successful. Good luck with realizing your goals.
How is AOC saying that the government, specifically in the hands of the democratic party, should take control of the economy to deliver material gains for the working class (which is a top-down approach historically used in rhetoric by the democratic party, and then abandoned once they have control) being construed as a bottom-up position? did you just hear the words "working-class" and assume that this means bottom-up?
“Working class” has historically referred to the lowest level workers. As for AOC, she has consistently stood apart from most democrats by advocating for universal health care.
As someone who considers himself a leftist and who lives in United States I am certainly concerned with the plight of the global south. But until I can wrest control of my government much farther from oligarchs there is little I can do to help you there.
Do you consider yourself.a.lrftisy be ause you oppose domination or because you stand to the left of the right? As my article makes clear, this distinction matters.
And the fight for the liberation of the global South is exactly the same as the fight for the liberation of the global North, because the same hegemonic system dominates the entire globe. So viewing these fights as distinct suggests an incorrect understanding of the systemic nature of how domination functions.
Democrats funded ICE, and Israel, and global imperialist expansion through the establishment of of a military industrial complex with base presence in 2/3rds of the world, just like Republicans did. So Democrats regaining control is largely an aesthetic change that in no way fights domination by ruling elites.
You are correct that corporate democrats (perhaps the majority of elected democrats) were complicit in the creation of ICE as well as its continued funding. As a democrat myself (I'd prefer to be a Green, but third parties are unelectable) this deeply upsets me. Ditto for Israel.
I find domination difficult to respond to because I simply do what I can where I can. Not sure I understand your meaning there.
As for south vs north I don't mean to say that one is more valid; however, the fight begins locally, which is why I identify myself as American and feel I must focus my help where opportunity presents itself. Right now the issues many seem on board with are ICE and Israel so I'm focused there. Numbers of activists count toward realizing solutions.
I do want to help things in the global south, but I rarely see movements to address their problems. As I meant to imply earlier, it is my hope that when movements I participate in see their goals accomplished, that activists such as myself are reminded that our work is not complete and that we must then focus more on the global south.
I apologize for not working more to aid the global south presently. Though I try to encourage others through my writing I do not see myself as a leader, nor am I the best at recognizing opportunities.
I hope I gave adequate explanations to your querries. Please let me know if I missed something or that you find fault with my approach.
So clear an explanation of Liberalism has been needed (by me, at least) for a long time. The connection internationally of Anarchism across time and space was affirming of its roots in an order that is quintessentially human in scale and quality.
I think I have been an accidental anarchist in that it illuminated some rather muddy thoughts that had been sloshing around my mind for some time and I am coming across others on Substack who are similarly tripping over this bright lodestone and I tend to point them in your direction.
A bit like 'Degrowth', Anarchism has a shock value that tends to unsettle people without a knowledge of its precepts but there are a lot more out there who would agree wholeheartedly with those precepts without realising they had a home.
The problem is that phrasing things as “colonialism” masks the truth of what colonialism intends—primitive accumulation. At that, the discussion tends to devolve into a discussion of rights and democracies, rather expansion of capital the only it’s ever been profitable, through transforming primitive accumulation with free or slave labor into commodities, discounting the underlying value or (in the case of oil, the danger). of primitive resources to begin with.
Excellent work. Thanks for taking the time to write this.
Great article.🤗
For anarchists, freedom is a method. That is the only true test of an authentic liberatory movement.
I’m pretty firmly anti-capitalist but I’m a very top-down thinker so it’s tricky for me to ease into more practical political approaches. This was a very good introduction, thank you. Any recommendations for getting more into pragmatic revolutionary politics?
I have a few go-to’s for introductory purposes, but keep in mind that there is a lot out there, and once you get started, there's a lot of ground to cover.
Jane McAlevey, “No Shortcuts” (2016) and “A Collective Bargain” (2020) for organizing as a craft.
Mark & Paul Engler, “This Is an Uprising” (2016) for campaign strategy and mass action.
Errico Malatesta, “Anarchy” + “At the Café” for short, grounded anarchist strategy.
For “structure without becoming the state”: The Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Dielo Truda, 1926) + FARJ, Social Anarchism and Organisation (2008).
While I appreciate the author's concerns, supporting governments is essential to instituting reforms. Governments are supposed to protect people, and without such we would still ruled... only then it would be by far less accountable warlords. I'm sure anarchists who feel the need to write something like this would far prefer to live under any government than that.
The false dichotomy of Warlords or the State is one I might have fallen for if nobody had ever written about, or built dual power throughout human history.
But the fact is that human history is rife with examples of regions (not just small communities) that have functioned perfectly well without the need for centralised or hierarchical control under.
for example…? (You don't have to explain, just mention and I'll look it up).
Sure go look into
Icelandic Commonwealth
Gaelic Ireland
Old Swiss Confederacy
Republic of Cospaia
Zomia
Somali pastoral clans
Igbo people
Tiv people
Haudenosaunee Confederacy
Medieval and early modern European alpine commons governance
I did look three of what you describe as "regions (not just small communities)". The flaw in your argument here is that despite these being technically regions, they are basically all tribal groups... far, far smaller geographically than nearly any modern nation.
I was taught in sociology that you can pull off things in tribal groups that simply aren't possible in larger societies. For example, a single family can be well established throughout the entire area of a tribe, while such is impossible in the much larger territory of a modern nation. A dominant family is typically not so representative of the people... it's the blood relation based faction highest up on the "food chain". Saddam Hussein ran Iraq this way... he literally came from a tribe, established it as the dominant one in the Iraqi coalition government. He was fairly popular (though still feared) because he made certain that food and other essentials made their way to all the lesser tribes.
Even your example of Somali pastoral clans (one of your largest regions) is but a fraction of the moderately sized nation of Somalia, which is presently without a government and run by warlords.
I do appreciate your reference to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. It was a coalition of tribes and as such encompassed a rather large area (perhaps roughly equal to present day NY state?). But still, the foundations were tribal.
Calling these “tribal” is doing two kinds of reduction at once.
First, it’s a category mistake. Some of what I listed are kin structured societies, some are confederacies, some are commons-governance regimes, some are stateless legal orders, some are federations of federations. Collapsing all of that into “tribal” is basically a way of saying “pre-modern” or “not real politics,” which is a colonial habit of mind, not an argument.
Second, it smuggles in a very specific story about scale. It's a way of that the only way large-scale coordination can work is a centralized state, and anything else either “doesn’t scale” or "turns into warlords". That’s not sociology, that’s a modern state’s self-justification. Scale is not just land area or population size. Scale is logistics, legitimacy, conflict-resolution capacity, institutional layering, and the ability to coordinate across distance without a monopoly center. Federations, confederations, nested councils, customary law, rotating leadership, and polycentric commons governance are literally ways humans have solved scale. Which is why I gave the examples I did.
Also, “blood ties” is not a disqualifier, it’s a constraint. Modern states simply replace blood relations with other factions: parties, security services, donor networks, corporate lobbies, professional-managerial pipelines. It’s still factional power. It just wears suits.
And Somalia is a great example of how shallow the “warlords vs government” framing is. Collapse of a central state does not mean absence of governance, it means contested governance, layered governance, and often external interference shaping which factions can dominate. If your only lens is “state = order,” you miss most of what is actually happening on the ground.
So yes, if the bar is “a Westphalian nation-state with a capital city and ministries,” then anything else gets dismissed by definition. But that’s the whole point... that bar is ideological. It’s not a neutral measure of what humans can do.
OK, I'll admit I find it somewhat difficult to follow your explanations though I do believe you've made a sincere effort. It appears you've done more research than I and I don't at this time have the energy to look deeper.
I have studied the ancient Iroquois confederation and consider it admirable and successful. Good luck with realizing your goals.
BTW this just popped up: Here is AOC very much supporting bottom-up policy… I believe this puts her in solidarity with you to some degree:
https://substack.com/@krassenstein/note/c-214110794
How is AOC saying that the government, specifically in the hands of the democratic party, should take control of the economy to deliver material gains for the working class (which is a top-down approach historically used in rhetoric by the democratic party, and then abandoned once they have control) being construed as a bottom-up position? did you just hear the words "working-class" and assume that this means bottom-up?
“Working class” has historically referred to the lowest level workers. As for AOC, she has consistently stood apart from most democrats by advocating for universal health care.
As someone who considers himself a leftist and who lives in United States I am certainly concerned with the plight of the global south. But until I can wrest control of my government much farther from oligarchs there is little I can do to help you there.
Do you consider yourself.a.lrftisy be ause you oppose domination or because you stand to the left of the right? As my article makes clear, this distinction matters.
And the fight for the liberation of the global South is exactly the same as the fight for the liberation of the global North, because the same hegemonic system dominates the entire globe. So viewing these fights as distinct suggests an incorrect understanding of the systemic nature of how domination functions.
Democrats funded ICE, and Israel, and global imperialist expansion through the establishment of of a military industrial complex with base presence in 2/3rds of the world, just like Republicans did. So Democrats regaining control is largely an aesthetic change that in no way fights domination by ruling elites.
You are correct that corporate democrats (perhaps the majority of elected democrats) were complicit in the creation of ICE as well as its continued funding. As a democrat myself (I'd prefer to be a Green, but third parties are unelectable) this deeply upsets me. Ditto for Israel.
I find domination difficult to respond to because I simply do what I can where I can. Not sure I understand your meaning there.
As for south vs north I don't mean to say that one is more valid; however, the fight begins locally, which is why I identify myself as American and feel I must focus my help where opportunity presents itself. Right now the issues many seem on board with are ICE and Israel so I'm focused there. Numbers of activists count toward realizing solutions.
I do want to help things in the global south, but I rarely see movements to address their problems. As I meant to imply earlier, it is my hope that when movements I participate in see their goals accomplished, that activists such as myself are reminded that our work is not complete and that we must then focus more on the global south.
I apologize for not working more to aid the global south presently. Though I try to encourage others through my writing I do not see myself as a leader, nor am I the best at recognizing opportunities.
I hope I gave adequate explanations to your querries. Please let me know if I missed something or that you find fault with my approach.