Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

9

Potemkin wrote

I think anarchists especially are not nationalists, and generally practice an internationalism rooted in "modernist" concepts of unity and solidarity. I think this position is also a natural extension of anarchism's utopian elements, as well as in the belief of a need for revolution (which ideally would be global and coordinated, though not necessarily simultaneous).

I don't think that acting locally while creating international solidarity are mutually exclusive. I think that it would be a problem if local action was at the expense of international solidarity--these two concepts need not be opposed or antagonistic to one another. The phrase "think global, act local" embodies this complementarity.

5

GaldraChevaliere wrote

This is a better way than I could've put it. I'm concerned with my immediate environment and the environments I spend time in, and ultimately actions I take are to serve the needs of those places. But my environment, even without globalisation, would still be shaped and moulded by the world around them. Actions have to be considered in how they ripple out and impact other environments outside your own, or how going-ons in other environments impact yours down the line.

5

Potemkin wrote

Yes, I agree. I think that's at the root of action and movement-building. For me, it starts individually--trying to develop myself in ways that give me a good basis and get my own house in order. From there, I have a solid foundation for neighborly or community-based action, and from there out into national and international solidarity and mutual aid. I envision it a bit like concentric circles. We have to start where we are, but I don't even think that's from selfishness. It's just the natural starting place for anyone to become a contributing and beneficial neighbor or community member or human generally.