Cosmopolitanism feat. Andrew

the notion of cosmopolitanism. One is the idea that we have obligations to others, obligations that stretch beyond those to whom we are related by the ties of kith and kin, or even the more formal ties of shared citizenship. The other is that we take seriously the value not just of human life, but of particular human lives, which means taken an interest in the practices and believe at land them significance. People are different, the Costopolitan knows, and there's

much to learn from our differences. Because there are so many human possibilities worth exploring. We neither expect nor desire that every person or every society should converge on a single mode of life. Whatever obligations are to others or theirs to us, they often have the rights to go their own way, so basically, we have obligations to others beyond just our immediate affiliations, and that human diversity is

something to be valued, not just tolerated. So it's not the idea of assimilating all of humanity into one singular culture or society or government. Is the idea of recognizing and embracing the diversity of humans, but recognizing our shared affinity all the same. There are a couple of different versions of cosmopolitanism. There's moral cosmopolitanism, or the idea that

all humans have equal moral worth. There's political cosmopolitanism, the idea that global governance or international institutions should supersede national borders. And then there's cultural cosmopolitanism, which is the blending in exchange of cultures through migration, trade, and shared histories. But cosmopolitanism fully embraced has I would say an inherent tens

with power, especially nationalism, the states, and capitalism. And while it's true that liberal cosmopolitanism relies on global institutions like the United Nations and reinforces hierarchies, anarchist cosmopolitanism envisions a world where solidarity, cooperation, and mutual aid emerge from below through free association, rather than being imposed from above. So today we'll be unpacking the history of cosmopolitanism, how anarchists have engaged with the topic, and why it remains somewhat

of a battleground today. Yes, the term itself comes from the Greek cosmopolities, which means citizen of the world. The earliest particulation of this idea is often attributed to Diogenes of Sinope, who is a Synic philosopher who, when asked where he came from, simply replied, I'm a citizen of

the world. According to Martha Nusbaum, Greek stoics like Xeno of Citium, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius expanded on this idea, arguing that humanity shares a universal reason and should live in accordance with nature, not artificial divisions of state or tribe. Of course, many of these philosophers didn't have any issue with patriarchy or slavery in Greece, so there is some inconsistency in their concept of a shared humanity.

and state based governance. Another Nightman thinker associated with cosmopolitanism was Dni Dederu, who criticized colonialism and argued for a cultural exchange free from that kind of domination. He also argued against monarchy, the church, and aristocratic privileges, as they were obstacles to a truly free and universal human community, which then brings us to the French Revolution, which brought

these ideas into the real world. Revolutionaries declared the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which proclaims universal rights beyond national or social status, but the revolution soon became entangled with nationalism, particularly under the Acabins, who suppressed dissent and waged wars in the name of France. Meanwhile, the

Haitian Revolution provided a different example of liberation. In practice, enslaved Africans, inspired by the French Revolution's rhetoric of liberty inequality, revolted against French colonial rule and established the first free Black republic. The revolutionaries, led by to Saint Levitire, argued that liberty was a universal human right, not one limited to European citizens, and declared Haiti a refuge to all enslaved persons. But despite its radical implications, the Haitian Revolution

was largely ignored or outright opposed by European powers. Their so called enlightenment only extended to Europe, ignoring our racial and colonial realities. We also see in this time the emergence of nationalism, which on the one hand promoted self determination for omopressed nations, but on the other hand saw the nations state as a superior form of political organization.

So anarchists were among the earliest critics of nationalism. Patrons of Pradawn, for instance, rejected both the nation state and centralized cosmopolitan governance, instead advocating for federation, a frequently misunderstood concept that refers in anarchist literature to a decentralized network

of freely associated individuals and groups working in solidarity. Similarly, Mikhil Bcunen attacked nationalism as a tool of ruling elites, arguing that states used national identities of press, class struggle, and international solidarity. Bi Cunin did back national liberation movements, but he understood the danger of nationalism as a force

that often replaces foreign rulers with homegrown oppressors. Instead, Bercunen promoted anarchist internationalism, where workers and oppressed peoples across borders would unite against both capitalists and state powers. By contrast, the Bolsheviks would eventually developed the idea of socialism in one country, and the ever paranoid Stalin would famously deride

Jewish intellectuals as quote rootless cosmopolitans. This, of course aligned him with the rest of Europe's nationalists in their anti semitism, inaccurate cricketerization of cosmopolitanism as opposed to cultural identity or sovereignty and ramid defense of national borders. Honestly, I would not be surprised if Trump or Putin used some equivalent to rule less cosmopolitanism today.

Was the starting quite, that's right. So like it's referencing this idea that like might makes right and like that, you know, if you have the bar of the state, then you're not accountable to morally or even even within the confines of the state, like separation of powers that we're supposed to happen in the US, right, Like if you have the monopoly on coercive violence and you're no longer constrained by those things.

Unlike Marxist internationalism, which has often relied on the centralized structures of the first, second, or Third internationals, anarchists emphasized decentralized, horizontal networks of struggle that connected workers, revolutionaries, and stateless peoples across continents. The anarchist Saint Emer Internationale, which ran from eighteen seventy two to eighteen seventy seven, was one

such network. As discussed by Lucian van der Waldt and Schmidt in Black Flame, that group explicitly rejected nationalism and state power, and throughout history anarchists worked a bridge linguistic, cultural, and national divides from multi lingual anarchist newspapers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries such as Laprotester Argentina, der Camp in Germany and The Libertaire in France, through transnational cynicalist movements like the Industrial Workers of the World World, which

organized workers across race, nationality, and language. In the early twentieth century and including contemporary mutual aid networks where anarchists coordinates across borders to support refugees, disaster relief, and addigenous land struggles. Anarchist networks, contrary to popular belief, often extended beyond Europe into North Africa, Asia and Latin America, where

anti colonial and labor struggles intertwined with anarchist thought. If you're curious, by the way, about the anarchist histories of Egypt or the rest of Latin America, they could check out my series on it right here on the canappen Air podcast. And if you've listened to that series, you'll know that because anarchists were constantly persecuted, exile became a

defining experience which further reinforced the internationalism. Folks like Michail Bi Cunan, Pieter Kropotkin, and Erikomana Testa moved across continents, spreading anarchist ideas and connecting struggles. Myl test in particular, was basically a common San Diego. You know, he touched multiple continents over the course of his life. So boyut the late nineteenth century anarchists like Groulph Rocker developed an alternative to both statist nationalism and liberal cosmopolitanism, which sorts

of balance cultural diversity with global solidarity from below. Rocker argued that people should be free to maintain their cultural traditions without being bound to the state or nationalist identity. So liberal costopolitanism was pushing a global order through state

led interventions, international institutions, and legal frameworks. And while this form of costopolitanism has led to some games on people in human rights, international refugee protections, and anti genocide treaties, well, for one, we see the failures of these institutions and practice daily, and for two, they ultimately reinforced the state power that creates so much harm, rather than dismantling it.

The UN and the WTO often uphold the interest of powerful states above and before the international laws and obligations, whilst sidelining grassroots movements. While liberal costopolitanism sits on its hands waiting for elit driven reforms to the system, anarchists engage in direct action to support migrants and other marginalized

folks without waiting for such reform. I have to give a shout out here, of course, to the No Borders network and also a shout out to the work that you do, James on the side.

Like it was a very global movement. The problem was not with globalization Costopolitanism internationalism. It was with the nature of neoliberal capitalist globalization, which let capital move and stop people from moving.

most people, like we were a very binational community. Unfortunately, the one way that that manifests itself is that the cost of living in San Diego compares the average wage is vastly disparate because we have this over pressure valve where like people can't afford it here, they can live across the border where the cost of living is cheaper, and that allows people to exploit working class people in both contexts sadly. Right.

free in our country. We want you to pay. And visas are not cheap theyan ever cheap, especially when there's no guarantee, no other than being accepted. Yep, it makes it all the more frustrating.

for regularitation and then trying to deport these people who have lived their whole lives in the UK.

country should be lost, I don't. I don't give any country that concession, but if you had to give that concession, you could be last to receive that concession as far as I'm concerned. You don't get to go on roam across the entire planet and then shut yourself off. Yeah, you don't get to go on steel and pill fall from across the world, shuffle it all into your national museum and then block people from access it.

block people's connections other areas. One of the few direct flights outside of this hemisphere, you know, to the European and African hemisphere is through a flight to the UK. And so by adding that in position, it's like it's like the world feels like it's being closed.

you know, the tied shifts. So now there's extremely hostile global order towards something as fundamental as the movement of people.

and harder to move around the world. And despite the Internet somewhat connecting us, like, our physical mobility is certainly much more limited.

That's fantastic. Carl Levy, an anarchist scholar who wrote two pieces on cosmopolitanism that a link in the show notes, has argued that anarchism's history offers a third way between the hierarchical globalism of liberal cosmopolitanism, which relies on state driven global governance, and exclusionary nationalism, which weaponizes identity and borders, often in service to the far right, and that third way that anarchism presents, not third way in the sense

of fascism. Third way, in the sense of anarchist possibilities, is a kind of federated pluralism, the web of self organized groups that interact freely without a central authority. This version isn't just theoretical. We've seen it in recent history through anti globalization protests, the Occupying movement, the Square movements in Egypt, Spain and beyond and so flowed. They show the potential, not yet fully realized, for diverse place based

struggles that remain connected through mutuality and transnational solidarity. We have to avoid this sort of abstract universalism that can be found in cosmopolitan thought. We must incorporate decolonial struggles and crown cosmopolitan practice in the voluntary cooperation of people acted in solidarity across differences. Ultimately, the question isn't whether

anarchists should engage a cosmopolitanism, because they always have. The real question is how anarchists can cultivate a cosmopolitanism that is truly liberatory, when the connect struggles without eraise and difference, foster solidarity without enforcing uniformity, and builds a world where cooperation and not domination, defines our relationships. That's what they have for today, or power to all the people.