‘National Personal Autonomy’ in a Post-Modern World?
For a while now, I’ve been curious about the Austromarxist concept of National Personal Autonomy. After reading what I can about it (very little information on the subject is available in English), I’ve come to the conclusion that in a decentralized, Pan-Secessionist/Tribal Anarchist world, it could be a very useful concept.
The following is the best (and most available) description of the NPA concept in the Austromarxist sense:
“Let us consider the case of a country composed of several national groups, e.g. Poles, Lithuanians and Jews. Each national group would create a separate movement. All citizens belonging to a given national group would join a special organisation that would hold cultural assemblies in each region and a general cultural assembly for the whole country. The assemblies would be given financial powers of their own: either each national group would be entitled to raise taxes on its members, or the state would allocate a proportion of its overall budget to each of them. Every citizen of the state would belong to one of the national groups, but the question of which national movement to join would be a matter of personal choice and no authority would have any control over his decision. The national movements would be subject to the general legislation of the state, but in their own areas of responsibility they would be autonomous and none of them would have the right to interfere in the affairs of the others”. – Vladimir Medem, “Social democracy and the national question”
The following excerpt presents us with an interesting concept: different nationalities in a given State will be autonomous and run themselves. Now, this is an interesting concept, one that could be altered to suit a decentralized world. What I’m proposing is a concept that could solve an important factor in a decentralized world, which is geography. Geography is not the only factor in what makes a nation, but it would be, especially after the collapse of the system, an important matter as people re-organize themselves along endless lines.
Before I go any further, let me just clarify that the title of this article isn’t entirely accurate. I don’t mean National Personal Autonomy in a racial sense, or even a Statist sense. I’m talking about the term ‘nation’ in a voluntary sense. What I’m advocating is a libertarian concept similar to NPA, but at the same time one that is used in a somewhat different way. I still refer to my idea as NPA in this article, though, because I do believe that the name adequately sums up what I’m proposing; so, in its most basic sense, you could call it a modern interpretation of the ‘National Personal Autonomy’ concept.
I personally subscribe to the belief that a nation or tribe is merely a group of people who choose to associate with one another, and that it doesn’t have to be ethnically exclusive (some may choose to form such a community, and that is entirely their own prerogative). The factors for a nation/tribe are endless: interests, religion, friends and/or associates, culture, race, etc. But I digress. In a decentralized world, there will be nations/tribes everywhere, as well as micro-nations, city-states, etc. The overall goal of a decentralized world is to create a truly voluntary society where people can live their lives as they please, so long as they don’t infringe upon the rights of others. But what happens when location becomes a factor in life?
In North America, for example, there is a strong affinity toward private property. I myself have no intent to give up my home. This is a great example as to where the NPA concept, or at least something similar, could come in handy. Let’s say an area is the territory of a nation or tribe, but there are people still living in their homes within the, let’s say, intentional community, who don’t identify as members of such (either sovereigns or members of another nation/tribe). Well, if you were to use at least a similar idea, there should be no problem.
If you were to ask me, I would say that they’re more than free to live in the same area, so long as they respect the Non-Aggression Principle. If they’re a sovereign or a collective of sovereigns, then I would recommend that they be self-sufficient in one way or another. The same can be said of the member(s) of another nation/tribe, although they may also be dependent on their respective nation/tribe (people make nations, after all, not geography; however, as I’m stating in this article, geography can play an important role). Or, they could even have trade deals with the other nation(s)/tribe(s) that they share the area with. Of course, not everybody would agree with this idea, and may not want people of a certain kind (I don’t necessarily mean race, I just mean in general) sharing the same area with them. That’s entirely their prerogative. The whole point of this concept is simply to offer a solution to the geography factor, especially in the large countries that make up North America, where a lot of people have family, associates, etc., spread out in different geographic locations everywhere.
In a Post-Modern, decentralized world, the possibilities will be endless, after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment