Anarchism and cosmopolitanism

Abstract

Until recently, the relationship between theories of international anarchy and anarchism has been ignored. Very recent work has started to bridge the gap between International Relations theory and the usefulness of anarchism and anarchist theory for the understanding of global politics. This article takes this discussion one step further by examining the relationship between classical anarchism (1860s–1940s), cosmopolitanism, post-anarchism and the global justice movement. It then investigates the linkages between the works of the 19^th- and 20^th-century anarchists, Rudolf Rocker and Gustav Landauer, and contemporary examinations of the linkages between cultural nationalism, cosmopolitanism and the classical and post-anarchist projects.

Introduction

Recent interest in cosmopolitanism has overlooked its anarchist roots. Although consensual and libertarian currents can be found in all human societies, the specific ideology anarchism, is a product of a conjunction of forces (scientism, statism/anti-statism, perfectionism, modern capitalism/anti-capitalism) in Europe in the 18^th and early 19^th centuries.[1] Another influence, I would argue, is cosmopolitanism. Here I will examine the works of the 19^th- and 20^th-century anarchists, Rudolf Rocker and Gustav Landauer, who wrote about the linkages between cultural nationalism, cosmopolitanism and the anarchist project. But I will also place these strands of thought within the recent post-modernist reading of anarchism known as post-anarchism.

The Context: Varieties of Kantian Cosmopolitanism

First, my argument must be situated among a variety of cosmopolitanisms that have flourished in political theory, sociology and history since the end of the Cold War and the emergence of the paradigms of globalization, diasporas, hybridity and post-modernism.[2] These include the discussion influenced by a pronounced revival of the Kantian project. At first blush the varieties of Kantian cosmopolitanisms have little in common with the anarchist project, be they the full-blown federalist project of Daniele Archibugi,[3] the more restrained version promoted by David Held[4] or the (on the face of it) oxymoronic versions of communitarian Kantianism promoted by David Miller[5] or Richard Bellamy and Dario Castiglione.[6] Of course, it is well known that Immanuel Kant warned that a cosmopolitanism that led to a world state would be a cosmopolitanism gone wrong. The political theorist Mervyn Frost, addressing this problem, has proposed a conceptual framework of ‘two anarchies’ embodied in a system of counterbalancing sovereign states and global civil society, thus freedom and diversity would be assured as the dictatorship of state-centric international society would be lessened.[7] Anarchists should appreciate the pluralism of Frost’s suggested remedy. Indeed, one of the few classical anarchists who wrote extensively on international relations, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, endorsed the balance of power, upon which, paradoxically, most forms of Kantian cosmopolitanism implicitly rely. And, as argued by Alex Prichard, Proudhon anticipated the logic of federalism and supranationality, which underlies the European project of the 20^th and 21^st centuries (indeed functionalist pluralists such as Harold Laski and David Mitrany read Proudhon with interest), albeit his projected agro-industrial federalism is rather different than the Single European Market.[8]

A methodological anarchism could be employed in the ongoing debate about the nature of the international system under the Westphalian and post-Westphalian orders and the degree to which 1648 marked a break between a world of multi-level medievalism and the modern world of sovereign states, or to what extent modern globalization and cosmopolitan politics are forms of neo-medievalism. However, until very recently, most historical and International Relations debates have not drawn consciously on the canon of classical anarchist thought, but the politics of alter-globalization is another matter, for as we will shortly see, it draws upon the same sources as post-anarchism. Frost’s elegant formulations reference neither classical nor post-modern anarchist sources, while Rob Walker dances around the subject even if his injunction to move from the discipline of International Relations to the ‘politics of the world’ and thus ‘the potentialities of more universally conceived humanity’ are closer still to the utopian vision of the classical anarchists. Certainly, the anti-statist federal pluralism of Proudhon would have been a useful reference when Walker warned his readers of the dangers of a super global sovereignty or a consortium of superpowers who might exercise a shared global sovereignty.[9]

But recently a series of pioneering articles examine in detail how the thought of Kropotkin, Proudhon and other classical anarchists can address key issues in the field of International Relations.[10] With reference to cosmopolitanism and anarchism, the interventions by Richard Falk[11] and Alex Prichard[12] are the most relevant. Falk anticipated connections in earlier work, but he reminds us now that philosophical anarchism’s traditions of cooperation, nonviolence, community, small-scale social organization and local solutions can be applied to practices in cosmopolitics. While for Prichard, David Held’s middle way between Marxism and anarchism and the centrality Held attaches to multi-level and federal solutions makes him a candidate for anarchist conversion, despite his lack of interest in the canon.[13]

Cosmopolitanism, Post-Anarchism and Libertarian Social Democracy

But perhaps a more direct connection between anarchism and recent forms of cosmopolitanism are the discussions that Saul Newman has pursued in a series of recent works, most notably in his Unstable Universalities.[14] In this work and the even more recent The Politics of Post-Anarchism, Newman draws connections between classical anarchism and post-modern thought by placing it within the related fields of cosmopolitan and globalization studies.[15] Post-anarchism, Newman argues, is a post-modernist take on the classical variety of anarchism; indeed, the first principles of post-modernism itself can be found in a certain reading of Max Stirner, Mikhail Bakunin and other works of the classical anarchist canon. Stirner perhaps does not need a reworking, but Newman has argued that Bakunin and Kropotkin can be purged of their positivism and scientism and be more easily adaptable to the radical critique of power and sovereignty one finds in the works of Jacques Derrida and Giorgio Agamben, for example. The radical form of post-modernist cosmopolitanism present in Derrida’s final works can easily be assimilated into, or placed near to, post-anarchism.[16] Also, the critique of the camp and the state of exception found in Agamben, or similar discussions pursued by Costas Douzinas, come close to a critique of state power found in the anarchist canon.[17] The libertarian cosmopolitanism promoted by Derrida’s New International is closer still to the anarchist tradition, one which melds the uniqueness of the individual with the necessity of collective action, closer indeed than the rather vaporous and muddled acrobatics of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, which involve a recycling of the automaticity of Marx’s much more thrilling telling of 19^th-century globalization and the pairing of Empire and Multitude (and perhaps, with some exaggeration, celebrating the strange marriage of Baruch Spinoza and Rosa Luxemburg or Georges Sorel).[18]

Newman and others also see the global movements of the 21^st century (the movement of movements after Seattle 1999, the Zapatistas, the movement in support of the sans-papiers, the cities of refuge projects and the no-borders activists) as practical manifestations of this post-modern, indeed post-anarchist, form of cosmopolitanism.[19] Paul Gilroy’s vision of post-race thinking—planetary humanism, which transcends the racist and imperial assumptions of Kant and radical identity politics of today—is another stimulating example. Gilroy’s formulation is rather similar to Walter Mignolo’s ‘worldly culture,’ which seeks to avoid the trap of a ‘universal reason’ predicated on the ‘West versus the rest,’ by embracing a liminal ‘border thinking.’[20]

Although Hannah Arendt may be classed as a republican thinker who stressed the importance of national citizenship over putative world citizenship, she also had a strong libertarian streak and therefore a latent critique of the international order of nation-states,[21] especially shown in her praise of nonparty council movements from the Russian Soviets of 1917 to the workers’ councils of the crushed Budapest revolt of 1956. Moreover, her pleas for the universality of ‘the right to have rights’ have been adopted by a wide spectrum of alter-globalizer thinkers and global justice activists.[22] However, it is probably true that Arendt would feel some uneasiness with many of her current ardent supporters. She would have been closer to April Carter’s discussions of global citizenship:

In contemporary terms a rigorous interpretation of being a world citizen within an international sphere dominated by realpolitik would imply living as independently as possible, and an ‘inner emigration’; or else it would require a more active anarchist resistance, such as the nonpayment of taxes and refusal of military service. Alternatively it might mean the kind of adventurous challenging of borders and state regulations undertaken by Gary Davis (a One World activist of the 1950s, [CL]). The true home of a committed world citizen would be a national prison. There have been periods, and there are certainly countries, where this bleak interpretation seems the only one possible, but it is not universally convincing.[23]

Even closer to Arendt’s heart might have been Bonny Honig’s form of libertarian social democratic cosmopolitanism, which sees the virtues of not dispensing with the thick social goods of physical and social security promoted by internationalist national communities and the national state.[24] Thus, Honig prizes the affective relationships which neighborliness may foster, but she holds out for a conditional relationship between a nationally grounded communitarian position and the virtues of global civil society, which she calls agonistic cosmopolitics.[25] A mere reinforcement of national ties will not protect the very qualities communitarians wish to protect. ‘In other words, rather than renationalize the state, democratic cosmopolitans seek to denationalize the state, not because they do not value affective ties and memberships but precisely because they do.’[26] Thus, Honig’s position takes us some distance from the anti-statist governmentality-centered Foucaultianism, in which category Seyla Benhabib has mistakenly placed her.[27] Thus, a libertarian social democratic sensibility, agonistic cosmopolitics, Honig argues, should embrace Arendt’s motto of the right to have rights, ‘as long as we understand rights to imply a world-building that is not incompatible with the project of building juridical institutions and safeguards but also reaches beyond the project because it is wary of how power and discretion accrete in such institutional contexts.’[28] Thus, from her ‘doubly gestured diagnoses’ of ‘in/formal law and politics’ she promotes an agonistic cosmopolitics that would also advance the Derridean project of the cities of refuge, but still recognize the importance of a politics of engagement with the democratic state.[29]

Cosmopolitanism and Anarchism in Historical Context

It is also important to look at how cosmopolitanism shaped the classical anarchist movement (1860s–1940s) and indeed how the cosmopolitan/global/diasporic turn in modern thought and sensibility can inform a contextual historical account of classical anarchism itself. A notable example is Benedict Anderson’s study of José Rizal, the novelist and Filipino revolutionary executed by the Spanish in 1896. In this biographical study, the historian of nationalism and South-East Asia traces the cosmopolitan worlds of Cuban and Filipino nationalism, anarchism and modernism during the era of the first bout of modern globalization.[30] Elsewhere, I have traced a series of interlocking networks, which encircled the world in the same historical period as Anderson’s study.[31] Thus, the anarchist movement of the pre-1914 period manifested itself through exile networks that were found in safe cosmopolitan ‘cities of refuge’ such as Paris and London, in the Americas and in the circuits of imperial power (formal and informal), especially in port cities.

Recent studies have examined these phenomena in ante bellum Buenos Aires (perhaps the city with the largest anarchist movement in the world in 1910),[32] Havana (as a hub for the circulation of anarchism on Caribbean shores)[33] or Alexandria and Beirut (in the heyday of colonial cosmopolitanism in the Middle East),[34] while José Moya has promised a book entitled The Anarchist Atlantic (with the obvious influence of Paul Gilroy’s famous work on the Black Atlantic).[35] Anderson’s book supplies us with an Anarchist Pacific (Hong Kong, Tokyo, etc.) and an Anarchist Mediterranean (Barcelona, Marseille, etc.). Similar approaches include the study of the spread of syndicalism within the British Empire or the spread of the Industrial Workers of the World from the USA to Mexico, Peru and other Latin American localities.[36] Davide Turcato re-imagined the history of Italian anarchism not as a national movement but as a movement of migrants from the Italian peninsula.[37] Indeed, the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta was part of a discussion group in a pub in 1890s London’s Covent Garden, which called itself the Cosmopolitans (a group of British and exile radicals), and was organized by the globe-trotting syndicalist, Tom Mann.[38]

There were other cosmopolitan circuits besides the exilic and syndicalist, such as the anarchist bohemias—artistic spaces in major cosmopolitan cities central to post-impressionist art and modernist poetry (London’s Fitzrovia, Paris’s Montmartre, Munich’s Schwabing, etc.).[39] A recent interest in the circuits of the anarchist terrorism in the 1890s has attracted the attention of ‘terrorologists’ and ‘securocrats’ because of obvious, if rather superficial, comparisons with the globally structured, but anti-cosmopolitan, fundamentalism of Al-Qaeda.[40] Besides the 14^th-century historian and ‘political sociologist,’ Ibn Khaldun, the cities of al Andalus (Andalusia) under the Cordoban Umayyads, ‘or the long-distance interchanges between multi-ethnic Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal empires in the 17^th and 18^th centuries,’ provide another genealogy of cosmopolitanism, which counters Al-Qaeda’s restricted vision of the umma and is a refutation of the widespread association in the Muslim world of cosmopolitanism, in general, with Western imperialism.[41]

Employing a modified version of Ulrich Beck’s concept of a methodological cosmopolitanism can highlight an alternative history of modernity in which the state form is not the endpoint of all narratives, thus a counter-history, which can be traced from the transnational Christian charitable orders, confraternities and guilds of the medieval period (Kropotkin noted them with interest) to the Republic of Letters of the early modern period. But methodological cosmopolitanism can also be used to uncover the intellectual origins of classical anarchism itself.[42] There is the cosmopolitanism (in spirit and modus operandi) of the Radical Enlightenment, first discussed by Margaret Jacob, and now superseded by the path-breaking study of the international pathways of Spinozism by Jonathan Israel, from whom some classical anarchists drew their militant rationalism, secularism or atheism.[43] There is also the marriage of radical international thought and the commercial cosmopolitanism of the early 19^th century (discussed by Gregory Claeys), central to explaining the origins of classical anarchism and indeed Marxism.[44] And there is the radical cosmopolitan politics of Tom Paine, William Godwin and Anarcharsis Cloots (‘the orator for the human race’), who countered the militant chauvinism of the Jacobins, with the unfortunate Cloots losing his head to the guillotine and Paine nearly so.[45]

A cosmopolitan sensibility also informs the three waves of social radicalism, which crested and fell in the period from 1848 to the early 1920s. Thus, anarchist and syndicalist internationalism are present in the two eras of transnational labor solidarity and first propelled the First International into the limelight in the 1860s, while in a second phase the rapid rise of internationalist syndicalism in the immediate pre-1914 years threatened the more nationally focused and bureaucratic social democratic parties of Europe and elsewhere. A third iteration of these waves arose in 1917 and fell with the concurrent stabilization of bourgeois Europe by 1924 and the predominance of authoritarian Soviet Russian communism over competing radical ideologies, thus depriving the cosmopolitan libertarian left of geographical, social and political space.[46] By the 1930s, libertarian cosmopolitanism was an anomalous survivor: what nation-state or empire would supply Spanish anarchists and syndicalists weaponry during the Spanish Civil War? The international anarchy of nation-states and empires from Popular Front France to the Stalinist Soviet Union did not look kindly upon Spanish anarchism.

A cosmopolitan take on the waves of social radicalism and radical mobilization, radical ideologies, and the emergence of the welfare/warfare and totalitarian state complexes in the 20^th century is a route which few global historians have traveled. This secret history is yet to be written, albeit Jeremi Suri’s account of the rise of Great Power détente in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as a reaction to the global social radicalism of the 1960s and ‘1968,’ is a laudable exception.[47] The social radicalism of global civil society threatened to disturb the international sphere of nation-state ‘anarchy,’ and thus nation-state power elites of all ideological stripes, East and West, sought an end to this dangerous spiral of unpredictable events by restoring order on the international plane through clamping down ideological conflict in global civil society. In other words, the globalized and partially cosmopolitan forces of the ‘1968’ movements threatened and disturbed the ordered world of nation-state ‘anarchy’ in much the same way as the victorious anarchists in Barcelona did in the summer of 1936.

Of course, George Orwell (a veteran of Barcelona’s 1937 May Days)[48] in Nineteen Eighty-Four, gave us an imaginative portrayal of a dystopian mirror image international society in which three world blocs fought endless, inconclusive phony wars to mobilize their populations in blind obedience to ruling elites.[49] This was adopted by C. Wright Mills, Herbert Marcuse and other radical critics in the 1950s and 1960s and was superimposed on to the logic of the Cold War, and thus influenced the radicalism of those 1968ers who had not yet fallen in love with any geographically specific social and political model, namely those middle-class radicals who rediscovered the historical legacy of classical anarchist and syndicalist cosmopolitanism discussed earlier in this section.[50]

Cosmopolitanism, Anarchism, Nationalism and Ethnicity: Tales of Mitteleuropa and Yiddishland

The surges of internationalist and cosmopolitan radicalism described earlier were undermined by both the ‘anarchy’ of a system of nation-states and power blocs, on the one hand, and the conundrum, state–nation–culture, on the other. From 1848 to 1989, cosmopolitan social radicals were always blindsided by the impact of both.[51] Here I will look at two thinkers who tackle the themes surrounding state–nation–culture. But my argument turns full circle: just as post-modernist anarchist theorists, such as Newman, claim that Stirner and other anarchist thinkers anticipate the theories of the post-modernists of the late 20^th century, so too did Gustav Landauer and Rudolf Rocker’s interventions anticipate Paul Gilroy’s speculations about planetary humanism[52] and foreshadow the disputes between primordialists and modernists in today’s field of nationalism studies.[53]

Landauer was a German Jewish anarchist, murdered by the Freikorps after the suppression of the Munich Soviet in 1919, while Rocker was a German gentile anarchist who, during his exile in pre-1914 London, learned Yiddish and became the charismatic leader of the thriving community of London’s East End Jewish anarchists. He died in 1958 during another extended exile in the USA, but lived to see the destruction of his adopted culture of cosmopolitan and diasporic Yiddish-land by his fellow Germans.[54] The ‘rootless cosmopolitans’ of Nazi and Stalinist imagination, the Jewish people of MittelEuropa, the Pale of Settlement and the diasporic ghettoes in the Atlantic world were the native or, in Rocker’s case, the adopted homeland of radical and anarchist theorists who tackled the triadic problem of nation–state–culture.[55]

Landauer combined a Stirnerite and Nietzchean sensibility (fight your inner statist, might have been his slogan; the source of real power was micro-power, this proto ‘Foucaultian’ argued) and manifested a spiritually based politics of community, with Sorelian overtones. Thus, the folk was both a real historically developing organism and a mythical illusion, but unlike the illusion of the state, which bred slave-like behavior, the myth of the folk brought life and hope. Landauer called himself South German, German, Jew and an indefinable I. He promoted the idea of multiple, indeed hybridic (to use a worthwhile anachronism), identities. He married a Marburg neo-Kantianism with anarchism and, most importantly, a reading of Herder, in which the concept of the Volk was not predicated on racial hierarchies, but was harnessed to a quest to preserve the uniqueness of each culture within an enveloping, libertarian anti-statist cosmopolitanism.[56] He also embraced a form of spiritual Zionism and inspired the kibbutz, but he did not embrace the settling of the land of Palestine by the denizens of Yiddishland (as did the assimilated French Jewish anarchist Bernard Lazare after he turned to Zionism in the wake of the Dreyfus affair).[57] He argued that since the Jewish people were least smitten by the cult of the state, they could take the lead in constructing communities independent of the state. His most famous follower was Martin Buber, whose early attempts to promote a bi-national solution to the question of Israel/Palestine, as well as his existentialist spiritual studies of Judaism, owed a great deal to Landauer.[58]

Rocker’s position is better understood as an anarchist version of contemporaneous Austro-Marxism, although a direct comparison of Landauer and Rocker can be confusing because they use the terms folk and nation to mean different and contrasting things. Rocker was not a Stirnerite but a rationalist, and he was very taken by Wilhelm von Humboldt (as is Noam Chomsky, whose linguistic theories and anarchist politics are influenced by the German thinker).[59] In Rocker’s major work, Nationalism and Culture (first published in 1937),[60] anticipating the modernist scholar of nationalism, John Breuilly,[61] he argued that the nation was a product of state elite power plays, not some pure primordial fact or some ineffable spirit (geist): the nation was invented, to paraphrase Benedict Anderson,[62] and brought together artificially a number of folk groups who shared common cultural traits individually and separately. Albeit Rocker did not display Anderson’s appreciation for the interplay of language, print culture and shared experience (and this is odd because Rocker was a printer, publisher, indeed a translator of world culture into Yiddish for his fellow East End anarchists).[63]

This leads us to the anarchist attraction to Esperanto,[64] a language invented in the multi-cultural and polyglot city of Bialystok, in the heart of Yiddishland. There are interesting connections with modern cosmopolitics, since Archibugi discusses the need for an Esperanto-like solution to the problem of political discourse in his projected federal world parliament.[65] Early in his political career, Antonio Gramsci had debated with the anarchists over the usefulness of Esperanto.[66] But Gramsci had been a very promising student of linguistics and he dismissed Esperanto as stuff and nonsense. For him, an attachment to Esperanto by Italian anarchists and socialists represented an artificial form of cosmopolitanism and prevented Italian socialism from developing a realistic form of internationalism. Artificial languages reflected the worse type of artificial cosmopolitanism: Gramsci was a language pluralist; he wanted his Sardinian nephew to speak Sardinian at home; he was fascinated before and during incarceration with the vocabulary of Sardinian. But he was also a melting-pot socialist and proclaimed the glories of the Italian language and the power which it had invested in the humanist educated elite: he wanted the subaltern and working classes to master these codes to achieve hegemony.[67] He was a rooted cosmopolitan, and that other rooted cosmopolitan, Landauer, was also critical of Esperanto because it lacked a passionate attachment to real life. Indeed, at different times and without their mutual knowledge, Gramsci and Landauer both criticized the chief Italian anarchist advocate of Esperanto, Luigi Molinari.[68]

The Sardinian’s notion of hegemony is derived, in part, from the concept of the prestige and the soft/hard power of dominant languages.[69] Peter Ives, who has earlier written on Gramsci, linguistics and Marxist theory,[70] has addressed Archibugi in light of Gramsci’s intellectual biography.[71] Thus, the emergence of global English as today’s lingua franca, as Ives argues, can be likened to the disputes over Esperanto between the anarchists and Gramsci. Can global cosmopolitics be expressed in a language that is not intimate to the speaker?

Gramsci criticized the arid and abstract positivism of the Free Thinker followers of Esperanto because they did not understand how culture and power interacted in the real world, and thus from this perspective, Gramsci claimed that his historicist Marxism was more libertarian than the anarchists’ anarchism because it was more realistic. Perhaps, he would have agreed with Hannah Arendt (even if the analogy grates on our contemporary ears), who wrote in response to Karl Jaspers’ enthusiasm for cosmopolitan world government, ‘A world citizen, living under the tyranny of world empire, and speaking a kind of glorified Esperanto, would be no less a monster than a hermaphrodite.’[72]

Rocker, too, was sensitive to the liberating potential of local experience and, anticipating Benedict Anderson, he argued that national cultures arrive from a shared sense of history or memory (curiously he did not think the Jews possessed these attributes), not inherent racial attributes or state-based official scripts, and therefore were malleable and changed across time and space. For Rocker, folk-group culture was protected by the right of each individual to carry and practice such a culture within a cosmopolitan world federation: in this regard he was a keen admirer of Proudhon’s promotion of federation, of ‘voluntary socialism,’ as he put it, and for a form of individually chosen culture.[73] At heart Rocker was a rationalist cosmopolitan, who bowed reluctantly to the need to accommodate cultural differences but longed for a world of global citizens. This is rather close to Gilroy’s planetary humanism, but Rocker also anticipated the ugly sounding but useful neologism glocalization (‘the inter-penetration of the global and the local and its ambivalence’).[74]

Conclusion: Zeno, Cosmopolitanism, Anarchism (Classical and Post-Modern)

From its origins, the concept of cosmopolitanism was Janus-faced. The Cynics and the Stoics coined and brought into practice cosmopolitanism. But as Douzinas notes there were always two traditions of cosmopolitanism.[75] The better-known varieties were the Alexandrine, Roman and later British imperial usages.[76] Thus, a variety of cultures could flourish under the benevolent rule of imperial law, in which all citizens were equals. Universal morality derived from rational human conduct would restrain local national rivalries of the citizens of the empire by teaching them to retrain their human passions through Stoical principles. Chomsky and Dounzinas argue that the modern-day inheritors of this tradition have used this as a fig leaf to promote the selfish interests of the hegemon[77]: thus human rights are American rights; humanitarian intervention is American intervention; cosmopolitanism is the ideology of frequent travelers.[78]

But Douzinas also reminds us that there is another lesser known antinomian tradition which can be found in the cosmopolitanism of Diogenes of Sinopi, the homeless and city-less philosopher (an apt exemplar, in our modern era, of the liminal, border-crosser) who told the visiting Alexander to move, as he was blocking the sun or in Zeno’s Republic, a treatise written by a metic, an outcast, a Cypriote of Phoenician or Semitic background, whose ‘city in the sky’ enveloped the entire world, not the bounded polis, and did away with laws and compulsion, with temples, court houses and gymnasia, and which has found a new iteration in the discourses and practices of post-anarchist cosmopolitanism in the early 21^st century.[79] Cosmopolitanism can be freed from the dubious joys of imperial shock and awe and returned rightfully to utopia, even freed from modern-day cosmopolitical ‘Free Thinkers,’ ‘from its contemporary champions, who have turned into a rather dull institutional blueprint.’[80] And in Zeno’s injunction to ‘make your own city, with your own friends, now, wherever you happen to live,’[81] we see an early anticipation of Landauer’s existential communitarian anarchism.