Articles in vol. 21(2) and later of this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 United States License. This journal is published by the University Library System, University of Pittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press. JOURNAL OF WORLD-SYSTEMS RESEARCH Anarchist and Anarchistic Anti-Systemic Movements in World-Systems Perspective A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Non-State Spaces Spencer Louis Potiker Jake Alimahomed-Wilson University of California, Irvine California State University, Long Beach spotiker@uci.edu jake.wilson@csulb.edu Dana M. Williams California State University, Chico dmwilliams@csuchico.edu Abstract While world-systems anti-systemic movement scholarship has briefly acknowledged the existence of anti-state “cultural” movements—namely, autonomous indigenous movements in the periphery and anarchist worker movements in the core and semi-periphery—it relegates them to secondary importance to statist “political” movements. In this paper, we provide an intervention in the world-systems anti-systemic movements literature by centering anti-state movements in our analysis. In order to investigate the mechanisms essential for anti-state, anti- systemic movements over the longue durée of the world-system, we operationalize a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) using nine cases of non-state spaces from different geographies and historical time periods throughout the world-system. We use a Boolean crisp set, or binary approach, denoting the presence, or absence of factors to determine the pathways that lead to the variation between explicitly anarchist and implicitly anarchistic movements as well as short-term or long-term non-state spaces established by anti-state movements. We find that the core and semi-periphery classification of anarchist movements is false. We also find that non-state spaces succeed when they are not repressed by statist anti-systemic movements or core imperial nation-states. In effect, the anti-systemic political actor replicates the logic of the core nation-state it claims to be opposed to when it comes to its repression of non-state spaces and movements. Prior to the “liberal geoculture” (1848–1968), even core states had difficulty repressing non-state spaces, and after the liberal geoculture semi-periphery and periphery states have had difficulty repressing non-state spaces. Keywords: Anarchism, Anarchistic, World-Systems, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), Anti-Systemic Movements, Non-State Spaces ISSN: 1076-156X | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 | jwsr.pitt.edu Vol. 1 | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.1 http://www.library.pitt.edu/ http://www.pitt.edu/ http://www.library.pitt.edu/articles/digpubtype/index.html http://upress.pitt.edu/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ mailto:spotiker@uci.edu mailto:jake.wilson@csulb.edu mailto:dmwilliams@csuchico.edu Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Potiker et al. 189 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 The world-systems perspective has argued that, following the springtime of nations (1848), a two- step strategy became hegemonic within anti-systemic movements (Arrighi, Hopkins, and Wallerstein 1989; Wallerstein 2002, 2014; Gibson 2019). This strategy refers to first taking state power and, second, transforming the world. As maintained by Arrighi and colleagues (1989) the two step-strategy dominated anti-systemic movements from 1848 to the 1968 crisis of the world- system. According to their world-systems typology, anti-systemic movements during this period of the liberal geoculture (1848–1968) can be divided into two categories—social and national movements—depending upon their place in the world-system. Social movements occurred in the core and semi-periphery. These movements aimed at dismantling capitalism and ushering in an era of socialism. National movements occurred largely in the periphery, and focused primarily on national self-determination. This article complicates the understanding of the spatial, temporal, and relational aspects of anti-state, anti-systemic movements in the world-system. Our analysis takes place over the longue durée of the capitalist world-system, across variegated geographies and time periods. Through a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of nine notable non-state spaces, we unpack the “internal debate” between statist and anti-state actors in anti-systemic movements, the periodization of anti-state movements, the types of repression non-state spaces encountered, and the world-system positionalities that anti-state movements occupied. Along with the spatial differences of anti-systemic movements, world-systems analysis also posits that movements can be categorized into three discrete historical periods. Mobilizations in the era before the 1848 springtime of nations often took spontaneous forms. These mobilizations aimed to restore the social relations that existed prior to capitalist expansion for the locales in which the anti-systemic movement actors lived. In the era of liberal geoculture, movements took the forms of political parties, both revolutionary and electoral. Within this period, world-systems analysts often misclassify anarchist movements as ineffectual and purely spontaneous (Arrighi et al. 1989) assuming there were no anarchist organizations that directed and sustained these movements. Despite this, Chirot (1986) places anarchism within the list of the four main twentieth century political ideologies (alongside communism, fascism, and libertarianism), although the majority of world-systems scholarship has not seriously considered the role of anarchism during the liberal geoculture. The contemporary moment is the final historical period that world-systems theorists of anti- systemic movements analyze. Following the end of the liberal geoculture, which resulted from the 1968 crisis in the world-system, analysts have argued that pathways have reopened for anti-state, anti-systemic movements. According to Arrighi and colleagues (1989), this openness is due to three fundamental reasons: the deepening power of bureaucratic organizations resulting from the prior wave of anti-systemic movements, the inability of the anti-systemic movements to deliver on their promises, and the increasing efficacy of direct action not mediated by the state. According to this logic, rational actors aligned themselves with anti-state strategies following the 1968 crisis of the world-system due to the failure of the powerful anti-systemic movements that controlled states during the liberal geoculture. In contrast, our analysis demonstrates that anti-state actors have always existed in the world-system, but that non-state spaces were actively repressed by core states Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Anarchist Anti-Systemic Movements 190 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 or other statist anti-systemic political actors during the liberal geoculture. Non-state spaces exist in the post-liberal geoculture era largely due to weakened semi-peripheral and peripheral states, due to a loss of hegemony once political anti-systemic movements were in power. According to Wallerstein (2002), the anti-systemic movement strategy of seizing state power during the liberal geoculture was heavily contested. Following the springtime of nations, both types of movements—social and national—had fierce internal debates between those who saw the state as the intrinsic enemy, and those who viewed the state as a means to attain liberation. Wallerstein identifies a critical point of departure between anti-state and statist anti-systemic movements during the liberal geoculture. The debate within social movements was primarily between the anarchists (i.e., anti-state) and the Marxists (i.e., statist). The debate within national movements was between political and cultural national movements (Arrighi et al. 1989; Wallerstein 2002, 2004, 2014). Wallerstein (2004) maintains that “one basic debate involved whether it was more important for the oppressed groups to change themselves,” he continues, “or to change the institutions that were oppressing them. This was sometimes phrased as the difference between a cultural strategy and a political strategy” (Wallerstein 2004: 68). According to Wallerstein, anti-state, anti-systemic movements were primarily focused on the micro-level of social transformation (i.e., the individual), whereas statist movements were focused on changing meso-level oppressive institutions. Wallerstein concludes that the statist side of the debate “won out”, thus relegating explicitly anarchist and implicitly anarchistic anti-state movements—and the non-state spaces they sought to establish—to the doldrums of world-system history.1 However, anti-state movements and non-state spaces are important to the history of the world- system. According to Grubačić and O’Hearn (2016), “the history of the interstate system is a history of struggle against nonstate spaces. Incorporation is a process not only of integration of new territories into a systemwide division of labor but also of integration of self-organized, extra- state spaces” (Grubačić and O’Hearn 2016: 17). By centering our analysis on anti-state movements and the non-state spaces they attempt to set up, we bring into the analysis of historical capitalism and anti-systemic movements the dialectically enmeshed countertendency to state formation, incorporation, and marketization. Non-state spaces have the tendency toward state de-formation, escape, and mutual aid. According to Potiker (2021), non-state spaces “deflect state power, processes of capital accumulation, and various other unjust hierarchies by either setting up parallel structures of governance and production or escaping geographically the purview of state surveillance” (Potiker 2021: 3). Furthermore, Wallerstein’s suggestion that anarchist movements were more interested in changing individuals or culture overlooks the dominant forces within these movements, which were always social, political, and revolutionary. In fact, Wallerstein’s implication closely resembles the caricature that Murray Bookchin (1995) derisively critiqued called “lifestylism,” or lifestyle anarchism. In its place, “social anarchists” like Bookchin (White 2008) prioritized a revolutionary program of class struggle, political transformation, and social evolution (see Shantz 1 Also, see Williams (2017: 91–92) for additional critique of Wallerstein’s views on anarchism. Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Potiker et al. 191 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 2010; Turcato 2015; and Williams 2017). For example, Chase-Dunn, Breckenridge-Jackson, and Herrera (2019) note thorough anarchist participation beginning in the nineteenth century through 1960s New Left, and into the contemporary moment of participation in the World Social Forum activist networks. Contrary to prominent world-systems histories, anti-state movements do not always correspond to the core, semi-periphery, periphery typology laid out by world-systems theorists. Furthermore, indigenous participation in explicit anarchist and implicit anarchistic movements and spaces is varied across time and place in the world-system. In addition, anti-state movements did indeed exist within the liberal geoculture and alongside revolutionary statist movements. The conflict between anti-state and statist anti-systemic movements often took the form of military repression of the non-state space by statist anti-systemic movements once the latter gained power. Finally, we find that there are multiple pathways for long-term success of non-state spaces. Long- term success is not hindered by internal organizational failures of non-state spaces, but rather by external repression—either by core capitalist and imperial nation-states, or by peripheral and semi- peripheral statist anti-systemic political actors. Anti-state, Anti-systemic Movements Next, we summarize the standard world-systems theorizing and research on anti-systemic movements by critiquing it from the vantage point of non-state spaces and anti-state movements. Importantly, the world-systems perspective can assist in understanding those very non-state and anti-state movements, and we explore some of that work below. Movements within the World-System World-systems scholars have argued that anti-systemic movements take two primary forms: social movements and national movements (Wallerstein 2004). The former are often characterized more intentionally as socialist movements, while the latter take form as national liberation movements (Wallerstein, Lemert, and Rojas 2013). This distinction refers mainly to conditions during the liberal geoculture. However, the actual distribution of these movements has been uneven across the world-system (see Buechler 2000). Within the core, most active movements have been reformist or social-democratic (e.g., Denmark, Sweden, and Norway). The semi-periphery is expected to experience the most active socialist movements, in particular revolutionary movements (e.g., the Soviet Union). And it is within the periphery that nationalist movements seeking to break free from colonial domination asserted their new nationhood and cultural independence (e.g., Algeria, Bangladesh, or Jamaica). World-systems scholars have posited that anti-state or cultural movements reflect a similar spatial typology. Anarchist movements were located in regions that had socialist and social democratic worker movements, and cultural nationalist movements were composed of indigenous groups that aimed to delink from the logics of the colonial state. These cultural nationalists were located in regions where national liberation movements existed. These assumptions are depicted in Table 1 below. Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Anarchist Anti-Systemic Movements 192 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 Table 1: Typical World-Systems Classification of Anti-Systemic Movements Cultural Political Social/worker movements Anarchism (Core and Semi- Periphery) Socialism/Communism (Semi-Periphery) and Social Democratic (Core) National/anti-colonial movements Cultural Nationalist (Periphery) Political Nationalist (Periphery) Like many broad, general claims, this classification of movement types by world-system position is attractive, but also misleading. For every example that appears to demonstrate the rule, there are exceptions that violate it. Indeed, some core countries have experienced highly active communist movements (e.g., France), while social democratic reforms have been sought throughout the semi-periphery. The spatial typologies of statist anti-systemic movements also do not appear to translate well to explicit anarchist and implicit anarchistic movements. As demonstrated below, anarchist and anarchistic movements occurred in the core, semi-periphery, and periphery.2 Anti-state movements also existed both during the liberal geoculture and outside the liberal geoculture, and they included indigenous participation in some cases while having no indigenous participation in other cases. Anarchist, anti-authoritarian, and anti-state movements are often conspicuously left out of these assessments. World-systems analysts have mostly considered anarchist movements to be short-lived, limited in reach and scope, ineffectual, and confined to a brief span of time during the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries. During that time period, it has been argued, anarchist movements struggled against other competitors for traction, ultimately losing out to socialist and communist movements that succeeded in either obtaining electoral victories by gaining political power peacefully (e.g., Germany, Guatemala, or Egypt), or via revolutionary upheavals that placed leftwing political parties at the singular head of the state (e.g., Soviet Union, Cuba, China, or Vietnam). Even world-systems analysts who are sympathetic to anarchism and anarchistic social formations (including those who critique the effectiveness of statist anti-systemic movements) often accept the premise that anarchist movements were largely ineffectual during the liberal geoculture, claiming that only after the 1968 crisis of the world-system have anti-systemic movements taken a turn toward anarchistic principles (Wallerstein 2002, 2014; Gibson 2019). However, we argue that anarchist movements were neither negligible, small, or ineffectual during their coexistence with other anti-systemic movements. In fact, anarchists were sometimes more influential and larger in number in some countries compared to their statist socialist counterparts. 2 Yet, the majority of public, explicit anarchist organizations are found in core countries (Williams and Lee 2008). Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Potiker et al. 193 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 Indeed, the anarchist movement was a potent force early on within the socialist movement in the 1860s and 1870s, and was so influential during the First International (i.e., via its Proudhonist and Bakuninist influences), it prompted statist activists such as Marx and the General Council to expel anarchists from the First International at the Hague Conference of 1872 (Graham 2015). Following this, anarchists embedded themselves within radical labor and worker movements, and unions throughout the world, diffusing their radical politics, often via Spanish and Italian political refugees who settled throughout North Africa, Latin America, and North America (Bush 2008).3 Despite having a reputation as a European and North American phenomenon, anarchist movements and thought proliferated throughout the world, taking root in places as diverse as Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Japan, and Nigeria (see Mbah and Igariwey 1997; Hirsch and van der Walt 2014; Cappelletti 2017; and Ramnath 2019). Within the western core of North America, anarchism was also influenced by Hispanic anarchists (Castañeda and Feu 2019) and Black anarchists (Williams 2015; Kom’boa Ervin 2021) such as Kuwasi Balagoon (Umoja 2015) and Lorenzo Kom’boa Ervin (Heynen and Rhodes 2012), as well as other Black radical thinkers, such as Cedric Robinson who was sympathetic to some aspects of anarchist theory (Robinson 1980; Al-Bulushi 2020;).4 In the standard world-system framing of anti-systemic movements, anarchism is both a prototypical case, as well as one that doesn’t fit its primary conceptualization. As a movement opposed to all forms of domination and hierarchy, anarchism would appear to be a textbook example of an anti-systemic movement, as it is opposed to innumerable systems of domination (including capitalism, colonization, hierarchical organizations, patriarchy, white supremacy, and others). However, since anarchists are averse to seeking state power, this puts their anti-state movement at odds with other statist anti-systemic movements that pursue the state as the means of liberation. Social(ist) movements, particularly Marxist-Leninist or Maoist movements, sought to seize the state, while national(ist) movements aimed to take over the state from external actors, such as colonial powers. In other words, by removing the preference for state-seizure, anarchist movements both oppose capitalist domination (as with social movements) and the control of external political actors (as with national movements). The key distinction is the anarchist preference for using horizontalist, directly democratic, and anti-authoritarian strategies within movement praxis, and envisioning a future society equally devoid of centralized, hierarchical state power. Similarly, standard world-systems schema poorly fit indigenous-led movements. Not only do indigenous movements seek political and cultural autonomy, but they also tend to prioritize pre- or anti-capitalist values. Unlike other forms of anti-colonial movements that seek their own state independent of colonial powers, indigenous movements commonly seek autonomy from states. 3 Caleb M. Bush (2008) is a rare example of a world-systems scholar who gives considerable attention to anarchist anti-systemic movements in the liberal geoculture era. 4 Although Cedric J. Robinson (1980) found anarchism to be useful to his theory which sought to denaturalize political leadership and hierarchy, he saw western anarchism as ultimately confined to nineteenth century Europe. According to Robinson, since anarchism was formed as a response to modern state formation it was intertwined dialectically with the state. This made anarchism “anti-political” rather than “non-political.” Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Anarchist Anti-Systemic Movements 194 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 Indeed, indigenous movements pose a fundamental challenge to capitalism and the interstate system (Hall and Fenelon 2004). Chase-Dunn (1998) asserts that “some countries have rejected modernization as western imperialism and sought to recreate ‘indigenous’ institutions and ideologies. The Iranian revolution is an obvious example” (Chase-Dunn 1998: 103, emphasis added). Here, Chase-Dunn analyzes indigenous movements by using the nation-state as the unit of analysis. Even in Chase-Dunn’s critique of the effectiveness of statist anti-systemic movements—in which he offers a cogent and rigorous analysis of the effect that uneven development has on class struggle, and the spatial disjuncture between the political unit of the nation-state and the economic unit of the world economy—recognition is not offered to non-state spaces. Instead, he argues for a world-state capable of governing the world economy (Chase-Dunn 1998). Similarly, Amin (1987; 1990) argues that the logics of the world economy and capitalist globalization create difficulties for post- national liberation development in the formerly colonized world. Amin argues for a process of delinking in which post-colonial nation-states break from the world economy. Although we find Amin’s contributions to economic and historical analysis important in world-systems, we still consider his centering of the nation-state as the main political tool for liberation as problematic. Grosfoguel (2006) critiques the use of the nation-state for anti-colonial politics, arguing “nationalism… reproduces an internal coloniality of power within each nation-state and reifies the nation-state as a privileged location of social change” (Grosfoguel 2006: 177). According to Connell (2007), while world-systems analysis easily uses the Marxist political economy language of classes, states, and exploitation, it has difficulty “dealing with issues of gender and race— constitutive structures of colonialism” (Connell 2007: 67). Non-State Spaces While classical world-systems analysis considers anarchist movements, non-state spaces, and anti- authoritarian tendencies of the left to be historically-specific and thus unimportant in certain historical periods and places in the world-system, there is a growing body of scholarship that focuses on anti-state movements and non-state spaces that problematizes this assumption (see Scott 2009; Zibechi 2012; Grubačić and O’Hearn 2016; Plys 2016; Williams 2017; Smolski, Castro, and Reid Ross 2018; Potiker 2019, 2021). While impressive in its historical and geographic scope, this literature is incomplete, as no studies have attempted to systematically model the general tendencies of non-state movements and spaces over the longue durée of the capitalist world-system. Below, we provide an overview of this literature and draw attention to areas of future potential. James C. Scott’s (2009) The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia is an excellent example of this grand type of scholarship. His case study of “Zomia” (in Southeast Asia) is not presented as a historical anomaly, but rather a common tendency by those resisting incorporation into the state. Though Scott’s study of how non-state peoples have resisted the pull of states is a useful analysis of non-state spaces and the imaginary of alternative futures to capitalism, it only provides a partial glimpse into non-state spaces. Scott views the state Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Potiker et al. 195 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 as the unit of analysis, rather than studying an uneven and relational world economy. Thus, he concludes that methods of subverting the surveillance apparatus (e.g., escape agriculture) disappear as state surveillance has become more advanced through the application of distance- demolishing technologies. According to Scott, as states grow their surveillance apparatus, certain types of non-state spaces become more difficult to establish and maintain. Focused heavily on the past, Scott’s analysis fails to account for the emergence of contemporary non-state spaces where there is a decline in the state surveillance apparatus. Prior to approximately 1600 CE, “barbarian” (essentially non-state peoples, according to Scott 2017) dominance was the norm—which converged with the rise of the world-system. Prior to that era, states were small in number, relatively impermanent, and limited in influence. Non- state peoples were not influenced by leftwing ideology (which had yet to be created) as later non- spaces would be, and instead were motivated by more practical concerns (e.g., maintaining their autonomy). Non-state peoples and their spaces posed an ideological and military threat to states, whose subjects may have sought escape from war, enslavement, disease, famine, and other maladies (Scott 2017). While the resistance of indigenous groups appears to reflect anarchist concerns and impulses, it’s important to distinguish between indigenous-led movements of decolonization from anarchist-inspired anti-state movements that may less directly challenge settler colonialism (Fortier 2017). In contrast to Scott’s historical analysis, Raúl Zibechi (2012) focuses on the contemporary relational aspects of global political economy. Neoliberalism, particularly since the 1990s, has created the structural conditions in which Latin America’s poor have created non-state spaces (e.g., the Bolivian highlands). Zibechi (2012) views these non-state spaces as a novel form of resistance, particular to neoliberalism. Yet, by limiting the analysis to contemporary movements, Zibechi’s analysis doesn’t attempt a robust historical assessment of non-state spaces over the longue durée. Although our analysis here does find that Zibechi is partially correct—that in the neoliberal era, non-state spaces do have a potential for long-term success—these spaces are themselves anything but novel. In fact, non-state spaces and anti-state movements reappear in every era of the world- system, variegated across various places and scales with different relations to the state and the world economy writ large. Grubačić and O’Hearn (2016) were the first to analyze non-state spaces5 over the longue durée of the capitalist world-system. They critique analyses of non-state spaces that do not address their relations to the world economy in the particular context they exist throughout space and time. Consequently, Grubačić and O’Hearn conduct a monumental and rigorous longue durée analysis of non-state spaces, their partial exit from the world-system, and the relations they maintain to the world-system. They point out that the study of non-state spaces is “necessary for the complete study of world-capitalism” (Grubačić and O’Hearn 2016: 42). This is because non-state spaces 5 Grubačić and O’Hearn (2016) refer to non-state spaces as exilic spaces. Defined as “areas of social and economic life where people and groups attempt to escape from capitalist economic processes, whether by territorial escape or by attempts to build structures that are autonomous of capitalist processes of accumulation and social control” (Grubačić and O’Hearn 2016: 42). Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Anarchist Anti-Systemic Movements 196 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 “constitute a common world-systemic process. Formation and reformation also invite de- formation.” (Grubačić and O’Hearn 2016: 42, emphasis in original). While a remarkable study in its historical depth and breadth (considering the Russian Cossacks, Zapatistas, and Irish republican prisoners), it does not analyze non-state spaces’ relationship to statist anti-systemic movements and political actors. Moreover, although the contradictions and challenges that non-state spaces face in the world-system are emphasized, the analysis does not focus upon the differences in conditions that lead to the success of non-state spaces over the long-run compared to non-state spaces that fail in the medium to short run.6 Smolski and colleagues (2018) have extended Grubačić and O’Hearn’s (2016) analysis by introducing a two-case study on the relationship between anti-state, anti-systemic actors and statist anti-systemic actors in the Mexican and Russian Revolutions during the liberal geoculture. They find that anti-state, anti-systemic movement actors were used by state revolutionaries in order to garner popular support. However, post-revolution, the state actors reincorporated the anti-state, anti-systemic movements into the state through repression, while the statist anti-systemic movements were reincorporated into the world-system writ large—a similar finding that is substantiated by our model as well as in the literature on worker self-management, itself a form of anti-state resistance. For example, Plys (2016) asserts that despite Marxist theories predicting socialist states, and world-systems analysis predicting that socialist states in the semi-periphery would be more hospitable to worker self-management, neither prediction was empirically supported. In fact, Plys finds that worker self-management is equally repressed in both capitalist and socialist states as well as in both semi-periphery and periphery states. Potiker (2021) provides a case comparison between two spaces within greater Kurdistan— Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan) and the Kurdish Regional Government (Iraqi Kurdistan)—by analyzing why these particular cases have divergent outcomes when it comes to the success of non-state spaces. The main difference between the success and failure of anti-state actors in Kurdistan was due to imperialist intervention by a powerful state actor in the world-system. Because the United States was directly involved in the two Gulf Wars (1991 and 2003), the anti-state actors in Iraqi Kurdistan were not able to establish a long-term non-state space over a large swath of land. In Rojava however, the non-state space was able to succeed despite repression from a variety of actors because the United States was not directly involved in imperial repression of their commune.7 All of these studies (Plys 2016; Smolski et al. 2018; Potiker 2021) provide insight into the causes of non-state spaces’ success and failure. However, since they all focus upon the meso and conjunctural scale of analysis—in a particular space or time—they lack what a macro and structural analysis could offer. Therefore, world-systems scholarship has thus far neglected to 6 Grubačić and O’Hearn (2016) in many ways laid the foundation for the study of non-state spaces within the world- systems perspective. For this we are greatly indebted to their work. In order to extend their marvelous study, we introduce a contrast oriented comparative methodology to the study of non-state spaces over the longue durée. 7 Indeed, the United States actually helped to arm Kurdish groups during the Syrian civil war. Potiker (2021) does claim that state repression is ongoing and that Rojava may need to establish geopolitical allies in order to sustain itself. Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Potiker et al. 197 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 create a general model of anti-state movements and non-state spaces over the system’s longue durée.8 Methods, Case Selection, and Data For this analysis, we use qualitative comparative analysis (QCA)—a comparative-historical methodology designed for mid-size N comparisons (Ragin 1987).9 QCA enables researchers to expand beyond single case studies or small N comparisons in terms of model breadth, while also allowing them to go into greater depth for each case than quantitative data (or large size N) analysis. The models presented uses a Boolean crisp set approach to data collection; the cases have dichotomous (0 or 1) values that denote the presence or absence of conditions that may lead to various outcomes. By combining these conditions through a truth table algorithm, we were able to analyze multiple pathways across various outcomes for our cases (Ragin 2004). The QCA was conducted twice in order to address two important questions pertaining to a world-systems perspective of non-state spaces and anti-state movements. The first QCA compares cases that were explicitly anarchist (i.e., featuring prominent, explicitly anarchist organizations) with non-state spaces lacking an explicit connection to anarchism—the latter which we denote as implicitly anarchistic.10 We did this in order to investigate the claim that the types of non-state movements varied by time period and their position in the core-periphery hierarchy—that is, core non-state movements being anarchist and periphery movements being culturally nationalist. We utilized five conditions for this analysis, including: whether the movement existed within the liberal geoculture period (1848–1968); whether the movement was in the core, semi-periphery, or periphery; and whether there was substantial participation by an indigenous group in the movement. The core, semi-periphery, and periphery variables denote the position in the world- system of the state in which the non-state space is located—our categorizations are explained in Appendix B.11 Participation by an indigenous group in the movement denotes a substantial 8 It’s worth noting that our non-state spaces are semi-permanent, territorial (i.e., not just organizational), and occupy spaces larger than a single building. However, everyday non-state spaces exist much more widely, sometimes taking the form of squatted buildings or mutual aid groups. 9 While QCA is not very common in world-systems analysis, it has been used before by Plys (2016), as well as more frequently in social movement scholarship (e.g, Wickham-Crowley 1993; Brown and Boswell 1995; Cress and Snow 2000; Dixon, Roscigno, and Hudson 2004; Hagan and Hansford-Bowles 2005; Beers 2016;). 10 Anarchistic movement actors are those who possess anarchist-friendly values, organizational styles, and action preferences, but who do not adopt the label “anarchist” (Williams 2017). For example, the Iberian Anarchist Federation is explicitly anarchist, while the Zapatistas have often been called “anarchistic.” 11 Wallerstein (2004) prefers the core-periphery distinction to not represent nation-states in the world-system, but rather relational productive processes; core processes are more monopolistic and capital intensive while peripheral processes are more competitive and labor intensive. However, states are defined within world-systems analysis as core if they have majority core productive processes, periphery if they have majority peripheral productive processes, and semi-periphery if they have a similar amount of both (productive processes cannot be semi-peripheral). In our data, we had variables denoting the type of productive process that was prominent in the non-state spaces, the type of state Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Anarchist Anti-Systemic Movements 198 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 involvement of indigenous forces in the non-state movement, including claims of sovereignty, autonomous relations, and minority status (Hall and Fenelon 2004). In the second QCA, we compared cases that existed over a long-term period of time (over five years) with those that were dissolved after a short period of time (less than five years). Six conditions were used, including: before the liberal geoculture (pre-1848); during the liberal geoculture; after the liberal geoculture (post-1968); non-core state repression; core state repression; and anti-systemic political actor repression. Non-core state repression was defined as attempted military or police repression from either a periphery or semi-periphery state. Core state repression was thus defined as attempted military or police repression from a core state. Lastly, anti-systemic movement repression was defined as attempted military or police repression of the non-state space by a statist anti-systemic movement or political actor. Repression was either territorial or extraterritorial; thus, the state (or movement doing the repression) either laid claim to the territory that the non-state space was located within or executed the repression through an imperial venture. While QCA enables the researcher to have a broader model compared to a single case study or a small N comparison, what it gains in model breadth, it loses in case study depth. Since the aim of this paper was to create a general model for non-state spaces and anti-state, anti-systemic movements in the world-system, we elected to use QCA rather than using a smaller N in our comparison. Because of this, we do not go into detail on exactly how some of these spaces resisted repression, or to what degree there was indigenous involvement in the movements. Rather, we made decisions based on our data collection on whether these conditions were present or absent in our cases, and included brief explanations of why these decisions were made. Because this is a medium N comparison, we were also unable to go into detail about what deals anti-state actors made with statist actors and the ideological differences between the movements in the comparison. The data was collected through a deep reading of secondary sources, such as written histories and ethnographic research, as well as primary sources such as news articles and writings from movement actors. Our data collection also involved gathering many other variables that did not ultimately have an effect on the variation between cases.12 We did not include variables that were constant across all cases due to their inability to explain variation; for example, we did not collect data on whether or not our non-state spaces had military or defense units, because all of the cases did. Many of these sources are later referenced in the discussion, adding substantive detail to the QCA results. All variable definitions and operationalizations were determined via in-depth the non-state space existed within, as well as the type of state that repressed the non-state spaces using core, semi- periphery, and periphery for all classifications. The productive process variable was not causal for the differentiation of outcomes upon running the analysis and therefore was left out of the findings. 12 Those non-included variables are: core productive process, periphery productive process, mixed core and periphery productive process, interstate wartime, internal conflict between state and non-state space, powerful geopolitical ally, international participants, attempted territorial state repression, attempted extraterritorial state repression, racialized population, charismatic leader, traditional enemy, offshoot of a political movement, and authoritarian conservative national politics. Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Potiker et al. 199 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 discussions between the three authors and are explained in Appendix A. The data points for each analysis (referred to as “truth tables” in QCA) are found in Tables 2 and 3 below. Table 2: Truth Table of Explicitly Anarchist vs. Anarchistic Non-State Spaces Cases Liberal Geoculture Core, Semi- Periphery, Periphery Indigenous Participation Outcome: Anarchist vs. Anarchistic Palmares and Rojava No Periphery Yes Anarchistic Paris Yes Core No Anarchistic Zapatistas No Semi-Periphery Yes Anarchistic Ukraine and Manchuria Yes Periphery No Anarchist Exarchia No Semi-Periphery No Anarchist Spain Yes Semi-Periphery No Anarchist Baja Yes Periphery Yes Anarchist Data collected by authors through deep reading of primary and secondary sources. Table 3: Truth Table of Long-Term vs. Short-Term Non-State Spaces Cases Time period in relation to Liberal Geoculture Non-Core State Repression Core State Repression Anti- Systemic Movement Repression Outcome: Long-Term vs. Short- Term Paris and Manchuria During Liberal Geoculture No Yes No Short-Term Baja, Ukraine, and Spain During Liberal Geoculture Yes No Yes Short-Term Palmares Before Liberal Geoculture No Yes No Long-Term Exarchia, Zapatistas, and Rojava After Liberal Geoculture Yes No No Long-Term Data collected by authors through deep reading of primary and secondary sources. Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Anarchist Anti-Systemic Movements 200 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 The cases were deliberately selected to include a wide variety of features, thus enhancing the explanatory power of the QCA approach. In doing so the case selection intentionally elides a controlled comparative model in which we would have compared cases from the same stages of the world-system or the same positionality within the world economy. Instead, our case selection represents cases from a variety of standpoints within the world-system. We intentionally avoided a model of this type because, according to Simmons and Smith (2021), “one potential unintended consequence of this drive for control…is that scholars may choose simply not to consider potentially illuminating comparisons because they are too different or complex to produce even the illusion of control” (Simmons and Smith 2021: 16). Instead of placing control at the forefront, this model seeks to create a general explanation of why or why not anti-state, anti-systemic movements have central anarchist organizations, as well as whether or not non-state spaces and anti-state, anti-systemic movements succeed or fail over the long run. In order to bring control back into the model, after the QCA we use Mill’s (1843) methods of agreement and difference on vastly different cases with the same outcome and similar cases with different outcomes, respectively (Skocpol and Sommers 1980). Included in our model is an older commune that predates the liberal geoculture (during the seventeenth century), the African slave maroon community known as Palmares, located in the Brazilian rainforest. Palmares served as a decades-old space of escape within indigenous territory during the seventeenth century for slaves living within the Portuguese colony (Robinson 1983; Anderson 1996).13 Numerous non-state communes also existed within the liberal geoculture, the first of which being the Paris Commune of 1871 in France. Working-class Parisians fortified the city during the German siege, creating an assembly to dramatically expand rights to all residents, and ultimately defended the city from Versailles’s invading army for its short, two-month duration (Merriman 2014). The Baja Commune was established in Tijuana and Mexicali during the Mexican Revolution (1911). The Baja communards included Mexican expatriates such as the anarchist Magón brothers, American members of the Industrial Workers of the World, and indigenous residents of Baja (Griswold del Castillo 1980; Taylor 1999). The Ukrainian Revolution began at the same time as the popular revolution in Russia that deposed the Czar, lasting from 1917 through 1921. A peasant army of anarcho-communists, led by Nestor Makhno, defended a territory in southeastern Ukraine by fighting off monarchists, nationalists, German imperialists, and ultimately the Soviet Red Army (Arshinov 2002; Skirda 2004). The Korean Shin-min commune was formed in occupied Manchuria (from 1929 through 1931) by anarcho-communists with the blessing of a regional Korean military commander. While in the traditionally-Chinese territory of Manchuria, Korean refugees of the Shin-min prefecture faced constant pressure and attack from Japanese imperialism (Ki-Rak 1986). And the last case during the liberal geoculture was the Spanish Revolution during the mid-late-1930s. Anarcho-syndicalists seized weapon caches, formed defense committees and military units, and supported the collectivization of factory 13 Palmares is our only case which reflects Scott’s (2017) “barbarians,” who sought to escape state-building projects (which brought enslavement, famine, disease, etc.) to regain their autonomy, and whose participants were not influenced by leftwing ideology to create autonomy within the state’s existing territory. Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Potiker et al. 201 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 workplaces and large farms across Catalonia in northeast Spain (Mintz 2013; Guillamón 2014). Ultimately, anarchists and revolutionary Spain were defeated by western countries blocking necessary imports and by leftwing fissures spurred by Stalin and anarchist collaboration with the Republican government, resulting in a military victory for the fascist Franco government (Guillamón 2020). Following the end of the liberal geoculture, we included non-state communes such as the anarchist neighborhood Exarchia in Athens, Greece since the 1980s, home to many radicals who helped defeat the military junta, that founded community squats, and run neighborhood assemblies in a “no-go zone” for police (Apoifis 2016). The Zapatista autonomous region in Chiapas, Mexico (starting in 1994) was initiated in resistance to the destruction of collective land rights due to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The indigenous Zapatistas have defended their space and land rights using a form of traditional consultative governance and military planning (Grubačić and O’Hearn 2016). And finally, the Western Kurdistan region known as Rojava was established after the 2011 Arab Spring and the start of the Syrian Civil War. Using the ideas of democratic confederalism, Kurds created an inter-ethnic, multi-layered governance structure that prioritizes feminism, ecology, cooperative economics, and autonomy within Kurdistan (Knapp, Flach, and Ayboga 2016; Schmidinger 2018; Potiker 2019, 2021). The geographic scale of our nine cases vary greatly—and intentionally resists the often casual slippage of world-system analysis that relies upon country-based data—including small neighborhoods, cities, states or provinces, and large portions of entire countries. However, all existed or exist as smaller territories within larger territories (typically states) that continued to claim ultimate political authority. The cases are also varied in their world-system position, existing within core, semi-periphery, and periphery states, as well as core and periphery areas within states. While there are other anti-state movements and explicitly anarchist anti-systemic movements over the longue durée of the world-system, we chose to only analyze movements that had direct connections to space and that possessed some territorial autonomy. Furthermore, the non-state spaces were selected due to their prominence within contemporary anarchist movement discourse and historical understanding of anarchist and anarchistic praxis.14 Results Next, we describe the basic results of our QCA, before discussing those results in the next section. The first QCA compared anarchist and anarchistic non-state spaces. For cases with prominent anarchist organizations, there were two pathways of conditions. In the first anarchist set of conditions, Spain and Exarchia existed within semi-periphery states, but featured no indigenous participation. In the second anarchist set of conditions, Baja, Ukraine, and Manchuria existed 14 This qualification is subjective, but all three authors have spent years in and around anarchist spaces and movements. Other potential cases were initially debated, but rejected for a variety of factors: a lack of English-language secondary research, their debatable “liberatory” qualities, being too short-lived, existing in a very small space (e.g., only a single building), or having rather limited participants. Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Anarchist Anti-Systemic Movements 202 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 within the periphery during the liberal geoculture. For Spain and Exarchia, the difference in historical time period did not change the outcome. For Baja, Ukraine, and Manchuria, differences in indigenous participation did not change the outcome.15 For those cases with no prominent anarchist organizations (i.e., anarchistic), there were three sets of conditions. In the first of these anarchistic pathways, Paris resided in a core state with no indigenous participation, during the liberal geoculture. The second anarchistic pathway featured the Zapatistas, which was located in a semi-periphery state, occurred outside of the liberal geoculture, and had high indigenous participation. Finally, the third anarchistic pathway included Palmares and Rojava, both of which occurred outside the liberal geoculture, within peripheral states, and had high indigenous participation. This analysis is graphically depicted below in Figure 1. Figure 1. QCA for Spaces with Central Anarchist Organizations vs. Spaces Without Authors’ illustration of QCA comparing the set of conditions resulting in either anarchist or anarchistic spaces. The second QCA comparing long-term non-state spaces to short-term non-state spaces resulted in two sets of conditions to both outcomes (four in total). Long-term success cases took one of two paths. For the first pathway, Exarchia, Zapatistas, and Rojava all occurred after the liberal geoculture, did not experience anti-systemic movement or core state repression, but 15 This is because there is variation between the cases within the same sets in terms of the variable that was not causal. Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Potiker et al. 203 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 experienced non-core state repression. In the second long-term pathway, Palmares occurred before the liberal geoculture, did not have anti-systemic movement repression or non-core state repression, but experienced core state repression. The short-term cases also had one of two sets of conditions. First, Paris and Manchuria both occurred during the liberal geoculture, had core state repression, but did not experience non-core state or anti-systemic movement repression. Second, Baja, Ukraine, and Spain also occurred in the liberal geoculture, but experienced no direct core state repression and had non-core state repression paired with anti-systemic movement repression. This analysis is graphically depicted in Figure 2 below. Figure 2. QCA for Short-Term vs. Long-Term Non-State Spaces Authors’ illustration of QCA comparing the set of conditions resulting in either long-term or short-term non-state spaces. Discussion The first QCA comparing anarchist and anarchistic spaces addresses ongoing confusions of categorization within the world-systems literature regarding anti-systemic movements. As can be seen in Table 4, explicitly anarchist movements did not follow expected world-systems analysis, wherein anarchist movements have been presumed to reside primarily in the core and semi- periphery.16 In fact, the explicitly anarchist spaces were most commonly represented in the periphery. Furthermore, anarchist movements existed both with indigenous participants and without,17 as well as within and outside the liberal geoculture. As shown in Table 5, anarchistic 16 Refer back to Table 1 for world-systems typology. 17 Baja featured indigenous anarchist partisans (such as the Magóns), while the non-anarchist indigenous participated in Palmares, the Zapatistas, and Rojava. For the latter cases, Native Amazonians helped to shelter escaped African Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Anarchist Anti-Systemic Movements 204 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 spaces do not exhibit any general pattern. They existed in the core, semi-periphery, and periphery; with or without indigenous participants; and inside and outside the liberal geoculture. This analysis indicates that some of the common presumptions derived from world-systems analysis about anti- state movements are inaccurate. Despite anarchists having an organizational advantage in the wealthy core of Western Europe and North America (see Williams and Lee 2008), this has not translated into anarchist non-state spaces in the core. Additionally, while no explicitly anarchist space would be expected prior to the liberal geoculture—the period in which anarchism emerged— anarchist forces were active, although not organized during our first liberal geoculture case, the Paris Commune. Also, anarchists continued to be active following the liberal geoculture era as the anarchist neighborhood Exarchia demonstrates following the period’s end. The lack of a generalizable pattern is a meaningful rebuke to traditional world-systems assumptions about non- state spaces and anti-state movements. Table 4: Explicitly Anarchist Spaces Sets of Cases Liberal Geoculture Core, Semi- Periphery, Periphery Indigenous Population Baja, Ukraine, and Manchuria Yes Periphery Mixed Spain and Exarchia Mixed Semi-Periphery No Table 5: Anarchistic Spaces Sets of Cases Liberal Geoculture Core, Semi- Periphery, Periphery Indigenous Population Palmares and Rojava No Periphery Yes Paris Yes Core No Zapatistas No Semi-Periphery Yes Like the first QCA, the second QCA is also theoretically relevant for two important reasons. First, it shows non-state forms of political resistance across time and space in the world-system. Second, the analysis illuminates a holistic and comparative model for non-state space success and slaves in Palmares, the Zapatistas operate deeply within traditional Mayan territory, and the stateless Kurds have faced colonization from the imposition of borders by Western powers that denied them their own territory as well as Syria’s Arab settler program. Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Potiker et al. 205 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 failure over the longue durée of the world-system. Below we compare the sets of most similar cases with divergent outcomes. We do this in order to locate the crucial differences that led to their variation. We also analyze sets of cases with the same outcome in order to locate the universal principles or crucial similarities that led to their convergence (Skocpol and Somers 1980; Tilly 1984). This is a form of inductive reasoning referred to in macrohistorical social inquiry as John Stuart Mill’s (1843) “method of difference” and “method of agreement,” respectively (a technique also described in Ragin and Rubinson 2009). Unlike the first QCA’s lack of discernible pattern, this second analysis—focused on repression—shows rather meaningful patterns in non-state spaces. There were similar cases across different outcomes. First, shorter duration spaces like Spain, Baja, and Ukraine all faced non-core state repression and had an absence of core state repression just like longer spaces Rojava, the Zapatistas, and Exarchia. What separated these cases was the historical time period they occurred in, and, relatedly, whether or not they faced repression by statist anti-systemic political actors (e.g., Spain, Baja, and Ukraine). The movements in Ukraine and Spain were both successfully repressed by the Bolshevik-led Red Army and the Soviet Union, respectively. The Magónistas in Baja were repressed by Madero’s revolutionary forces. In contrast, for Exarchia, the Zapatistas, and Rojava, anti-systemic movement repression did not occur to the same extent. For the Zapatistas, the Mexican Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) had been substantially weakened by the 1990s. In the mid-1990s, the PRI had abandoned the principles that would qualify it as an anti-systemic movement through the adoption of neoliberal policies including the signing of NAFTA and the amendment of Article 27 of the Mexican constitution which made the sale of ejido land, as well as the ability for peasants to put up ejido land as collateral on loans, legal. Despite approximately half the Mexican military invading Chiapas after 1994, the Zapatistas used anti-surveillance strategies such as masking and anonymously fading back into their base communities. At the outbreak of the Rojava Revolution in 2012, Syria’s Ba’ath Party (which originated from earlier anti-systemic national movements) had lost power and was not able to repress the Kurds in Rojava. The Kurdish militias appeared to be roughly evenly-matched militarily with Turkish invaders—a form of extraterritorial non-core state repression. Finally, Greece’s social-democratic, elected government of Syriza did not attempt to repress the anarchist neighborhood of Exarchia. Athenian police—much smaller than a conventional army and predating the Syriza government—struggled to deal with anarchists and their allies operating under the cover of night and via squatted buildings, who use aggressive tactics to scare police from patrolling the neighborhood. This comparison is historically important because it addresses the so-called “internal debate” between anti-state and statist movement actors in world-systems literature. The analysis shows that the internal debate often took the form of active repression and reincorporation into the world- system, led by statist anti-systemic movements. While both sets of these cases faced non-core repression, this does not appear to be enough to defeat non-state space unless it was simultaneously paired with statist anti-systemic repression. While our analysis does not find any singular theoretical argument to be dominant, various cases are supported by multiple theorists discussed earlier. The work of Zibechi (2012) and Smolski and colleagues (2018) support parts of this model. Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Anarchist Anti-Systemic Movements 206 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 For the cases of Exarchia, the Zapatistas, and Rojava, Zibechi’s model (in which non-state spaces become possible under neoliberalism, wherein a weakened state wields a diminished capacity to repress) is accurate. However, Zibechi’s (2012) temporal scope misses the historical context in which repression occurred during the period preceding neoliberalism thereby ignoring those non- state spaces that did have short-term success during the liberal geoculture. The model presented by Smolski and their colleagues (2018) accurately interprets Baja, Ukraine, and Spain as these non-state movements were conjoined with statist movements during the liberal geoculture and, after a short existence, were reincorporated into the world-system through statist anti-systemic movement repression. However, this overlooks what Zibechi’s work illustrates: under different political economic conditions, efforts at repression and reincorporation by revolutionary state actors may not always be an issue for non-state spaces. Table 6 presents the similarities and differences between these cases for the outcome of non-state space length. Table 6: Comparison of Cases with Non-Core State Repression: Exarchia, Zapatistas, and Rojava vs. Baja, Ukraine, and Spain Cases Similarities Differences Crucial Difference Outcomes Exarchia, Zapatistas, and Rojava No core state repression; non- core state repression After the liberal geoculture; no anti-systemic movement repression No anti-systemic movement repression Long run anti- state societies Baja, Ukraine, and Spain No core state repression; non- core state repression During the liberal geoculture; anti- systemic movement repression Anti-systemic movement repression Short run anti- state societies Next, when comparing Palmares with Paris and Manchuria, another important theoretical finding emerges. All three cases experienced core repression, and did not involve non-core or anti- systemic repression. However, the Palmares maroon community occurred before the liberal geoculture period, while Manchuria and Paris occurred during that period. Once again, the theoretical insights of multiple past scholars help to explain part of this model. The Palmares case can be explained by Scott’s (2009) observations of the relationship between non-state spaces and the state. According to Scott, as the distance-demolishing technologies of the state (e.g., surveillance, all-weather roads, aircraft) become more advanced, non-state spaces become more and more difficult to execute and maintain on a large scale. By virtue of occurring before the liberal geoculture, in a time in which distance-demolishing technologies of imperial Portugal were nascent, Palmares had a long-term outcome. Despite Portugal possessing global reach and formidable sea power, it was not able to deeply penetrate the Amazon rainforest, where quilombo Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Potiker et al. 207 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 fighters engaged in guerrilla warfare against Portuguese invaders. However, not all states in all time periods are created equal. State surveillance advancements do not follow a linear and universal trajectory, but rather a relational and temporally variegated trajectory. Therefore, Scott’s (2009) assumptions appear to preclude the emergent horizons of non-state spaces in existence today within the periphery and semi-periphery. On the other hand, the cases for Paris and Manchuria are supported by Potiker (2021), who suggests that non-state spaces struggle when powerful imperial nation-states have uninhibited access to repress non-state spaces. In both Paris and Manchuria, powerful imperial actors were able to repress and ultimately break the viability of non-state spaces. In the case of Paris, it was a combination of German and Versailles militaries, while Manchuria’s Shin-min were crushed by the Japanese military’s counterinsurgency. However, Potiker’s (2021) study misses what the Palmares case shows—that powerful states (such as Portugal and the Netherlands) were unable to successfully repress movements in all periods of history. Consequently, our model gives a holistic picture of non-state space success and failure over the longue durée of the world-system. While prior scholarship has much to offer this analysis, our model advances a more comprehensive understanding of the relations of non-state spaces to the world-system. Table 7 shows the important similarities and differences for these cases below. Table 7: Comparison of Cases with Core State Repression: Palmares vs. Paris and Manchuria Cases Similarities Differences Crucial Difference Outcomes Palmares Core state repression; no non-core state repression; no anti-systemic movement repression Before the liberal geoculture Ineffective core repression due to lack of state surveillance distance- demolishing technologies Long run anti- state society Paris and Manchuria Core state repression; no non-core state repression; no anti-systemic movement repression During the liberal geoculture Effective core repression due to more fully developed state surveillance distance- demolishing technologies Short run anti- state societies Furthermore, what seems to be politically and historically relevant is that anti-systemic movements that claim to oppose capitalist states, but seek to acquire state power in order to subvert capitalism and colonialism’s domination, appear to reproduce the logics of the core capitalist powers when it comes to repression of non-state spaces (see Plys 2016). This is relevant for assessing why non-state spaces fail in the short term. In terms of non-state spaces that were Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Anarchist Anti-Systemic Movements 208 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 repressed, and therefore did not succeed past the short term, all were either repressed by core capitalist states or statist anti-systemic political actors (but none by both). Although the sets that were repressed by statist anti-systemic actors were also repressed by non-core states, we see above in Table 6 that non-core repression is not enough in and of itself without being paired with anti- systemic repression to subvert the long run success of non-state spaces. In sum, while claiming to be liberatory, statist anti-systemic actors produced results comparable to core capitalist states by actively repressing non-state spaces.18 This is detailed below in Table 8. Table 8: Comparison of Short-Term Cases: Paris and Manchuria vs. Baja, Ukraine, and Spain Cases Similarities Differences Crucial Similarity Outcome Paris and Manchuria Liberal geoculture Core state repression; no anti-systemic movement repression; no non-core state repression Effective repression by core state Short run anti- state societies Baja, Ukraine, and Spain Liberal geoculture No core state repression; anti- systemic movement repression; non- core state repression Effective repression by statist anti- systemic movement Short run anti- state societies Finally, a comparison between our long-term successful cases is warranted. Core repression was unable to eliminate Palmares’s non-state space prior to the liberal geoculture. This, in part, had to do with a lack of available sophisticated distance-demolishing technologies in the seventeenth century (which would have assisted the Portuguese attempts to invade the maroon community hidden deep inside the Amazon rainforest). In the other three long-term, contemporary cases—Exarchia, the Zapatistas, and Rojava—non-core state repression (from Greece, Mexico, and Syria and Turkey, respectively) has not been enough to halt their existence, suggesting a general weakening of the state within the periphery and semi-periphery in the post-socialist and 18 It should be pointed out that the liberal geoculture appears to be a singular causal condition that may align the outcomes in table 8 as well as differentiate the outcomes in tables 6 and 7. However, the liberal geoculture also denotes an era in time in which anti-systemic movements became “avatars” (Wallerstein 2004) of centrist liberalism because of their strategy of using the state for societal change. Therefore, the liberal geoculture cannot be a singular causal condition, in and of itself, and thus needs to be interpreted through its relation to the use of statist anti-systemic movements and the repression they bring about. Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Potiker et al. 209 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 post-national liberation government era. The crucial similarities that lead to the same outcome are detailed below in Table 9. Table 9: Comparison of Long-Term Cases: Palmares vs. Exarchia, Zapatistas, and Rojava Cases Similarities Differences Crucial Similarity Outcomes Palmares Core state repression (lack of effective core state repression); no anti-systemic movement repression; not during liberal geoculture Before liberal geoculture; no non-core repression; core state repression Lack of effective core state repression Long running anti-state society Exarchia, Zapatistas, and Rojava No core state repression; no anti-systemic movement repression; not during liberal geoculture After liberal geoculture; non- core repression Lack of effective non-core state repression Long running anti-state societies Although we do not provide a case in our model in which core repression existed post-liberal geoculture, past research (Potiker 2021) indicates that core repression is capable of threatening the existence of non-state spaces in the post-liberal geoculture era.19 This suggests that in order for non-state spaces to thrive in the periphery and semi-periphery today, coordinated efforts from core social movement actors—presumably those of an anti-statist orientation—must pressure their governments away from intervention and imperialism, as seen in the substantial Greek, Zapatista, and Rojava solidarity movements abroad. Conclusion This paper analyzed a variety of theoretically relevant findings about non-state spaces and anti- state movements over the longue durée of the world-system, which challenge and complicate traditional world-systems analyses of anti-systemic movements. Our first analysis contradicted the prevailing assumption that explicitly anarchist movements were primarily located in the core and semi-periphery and were “individualistic” and ineffectual during the liberal geoculture (Arrighi et 19 Core military and police repression is so advanced and sophisticated today that it was hard to identify a case with enough historical significance to put in our model that was repressed by a core state after the liberal geoculture. Often when core repression is paired with a post 1968 timeline the non-state space is quickly dismantled. See Potiker (2021) for a full analysis of the role imperialism plays in the dismantling of the possibilities of non-state spaces in our current era. Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Anarchist Anti-Systemic Movements 210 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 al. 1989; Wallerstein 2002) while anarchistic movements would be found outside of the liberal geoculture era (Gibson 2019). Instead, we found that spaces established by anarchist and anarchistic movements have existed in varied geographies and time periods, with or without significant numbers of indigenous participants—itself an under-theorized dimension of anti- systemic movements. For our second analysis, we considered the differences between long-term and short-term non-state spaces, resulting in four major findings. First, the difference between long and short- term success for non-state spaces while facing repression from non-core states—that is, repression from periphery and semi-periphery states—is due to repression by statist anti-systemic movements. Those spaces that were repressed by statist anti-systemic movements such as Baja, Ukraine, and Spain were unsuccessful in the long term. Second, the difference between successful and unsuccessful non-state spaces, while facing core repression, is likely due to the advancements in core states’ surveillance apparatus overtime. Palmares, which preceded the liberal geoculture and therefore existed in a time in which state surveillance was less advanced, maintained itself for a long time. Paris and Manchuria existed during the liberal geoculture and faced active, relentless repression from core states; both were dissolved after short periods. Third, during the liberal geoculture, core state repression and statist anti-systemic movement repression both had the same effect: dissolving non-state spaces. Therefore, anti-systemic movements and political actors, despite claiming to be liberatory and against core capitalist states, often reproduced the authoritarian and repressive logics they claimed to oppose. And, fourth, a lack of effective core state repression and lack of statist anti-systemic repression resulted in long-term success for non- state spaces following the liberal geoculture. While our model is rigorous in its temporal and geographic scope, as well as its methodology, ongoing research is needed in the growing subfield of non-state spaces, from within a world- systems or political economy framework. Our model moves closer to a more complete understanding of the structural conditions, as well as the spatial, temporal, and relational aspects, of non-state spaces and anti-state movements. However, future research should expand these models by using missing potential combinations of conditions. For example, our second model does not have a case that existed after the liberal geoculture and faced core repression. Including more cases with different possible combinations of conditions will further clarify the results of this model. Moreover, single case study analysis of deviant cases would improve our understanding of non-state spaces in the world-system. For example, a case that faced anti-systemic movement repression or core repression during the liberal geoculture that was successful over a long period of time, may uncover a different mechanism that allowed for this hypothetical success. Finally, different cases, or an expanded set of cases, could be used to assess the robustness of our analyses.20 20 We had originally considered—but ultimately decided against—the inclusion of cases as diverse as the kibbutz movement in Palestine; the shantytowns of Durban, South Africa; the Earth First! Free Cascadia forest defense campaign; Italian squatted centros sociales; the medieval Bohemian commune; the Aymara-led commune of El Alto, Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Potiker et al. 211 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 About the Authors: Spencer Louis Potiker is a Doctoral Candidate in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Irvine. His work spans the domains of global political economy, labor and social movements, anarchist political thought and action, critical logistics studies, border studies, as well as urban and regional studies. Dana M. Williams is a Professor of Sociology at California State University, Chico and is the author of Black Flags and Social Movements and co-author of Anarchy and Society. Williams's research focuses on social movements, social inequalities (especially race), and socio-political trust. Jake Alimahomed- Wilson is a Professor of Sociology at California State University, Long Beach. His research interests are in the areas of logistics, racism and labor, capitalism, and global workers’ struggles. He is the author of Solidarity Forever? Race, Gender, and Unionism in the Ports of Southern California, co-author of Getting the Goods: Ports, Labor, and the Logistics Revolution, and co- editor of Choke Points: Logistics Workers Disrupting the Global Supply Chain. His latest book, The Cost of Free Shipping: Amazon in the Global Economy, co-edited with Ellen Reese, is the winner of the Best Book Award by the United Association for Labor Education (UALE). Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the following people for their insights, counsel, and editorial assistance: Yousuf Al-Bulushi, Charles Ragin, Andrej Grubačić, Rallie Murray, and Arman Azedi. Also, thanks are owed to the participants in the Pacific Sociological Association and California Sociological Association sessions we participated in and to the journal’s three anonymous reviewers. All errors remain the authors’ sole responsibility. Funding: This research was partially supported by the Kugelman Center for Citizen Peacebuilding at the University of California, Irvine. Disclosure Statement: Any conflicts of interest are reported in the acknowledgments section of the article’s text. Otherwise, authors have indicated that they have no conflict of interests upon submission of the article to the journal. Bolivia; Free Derry in Northern Ireland; and Seattle, Washington’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. For various reasons, including those discussed in the Methods section, these were not used. Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Anarchist Anti-Systemic Movements 212 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 References Al-Bulushi, Yousuf. 2020. “Thinking Racial Capitalism and Black Radicalism from Africa: An Intellectual Geography of Cedric Robinson’s World-system.” Geoforum. Amin, Samir. 1987. “A Note on the Concept of Delinking.” Review (Fernand Braudel Center) 10(3): 435–444. Amin, Samir. 1990. Delinking: Toward a Polycentric World. London: Zed Books. Anderson, Robert Nelson. 1996. “The Quilombo of Palmares: A New Overview of a Maroon State in Seventeenth Century Brazil.” Journal of Latin American Studies 28 (3): 545– 566. Apoifis, Nicholas. 2016. Anarchy in Athens: An Ethnography of Militancy, Emotions and Violence. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Arrighi, Giovanni, Terence K. Hopkins, and Immanuel Wallerstein. 1989. Anti-Systemic Movements. London: Verso. Arshinov, Peter. 2002. History of the Makhnovist Movement 1918–1921. London: Freedom Press. Beers, Steve. 2016. “QCA as Competing or Complementary Method? A Qualitative Comparative Analysis Approach to Protest Event Data.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19 (5): 521–536. Bookchin, Murray. 1995. Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Brown, Cliff and Terry Boswell. 1995. “Strikebreaking or Solidarity in the Great Steel Strike of 1919: A Split Labor Market, Game-Theoretic, and QCA Analysis.” American Journal of Sociology, 100 (6): 1479–1519. Buechler, Steven M. 2000. Social Movements in Advanced Capitalism: The Political Economy and Cultural Construction of Social Activism. New York: Oxford University Press. Bush, Caleb M. 2008. “Reformers and Revolutionaries: The Rise of Anti-systemic Movements and the Paradox of Power, 1848-1917.” Pp. 50–81 in Making Waves: Worldwide Social Movements, 1750-2005, edited by W. G. Martin. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Cappelletti, Ángel. 2017. Anarchism in Latin America. Chico, CA: AK Press. Castañeda, Christopher J. and Montse Feu. 2019. Writing Revolution: Hispanic Anarchism in the United States. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. Chase-Dunn, Christopher. 1998. Global Formation: Structures of the World Economy. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. Chase-Dunn, Christopher, John Aldecoa, Ian Breckenridge-Jackson, and Joel S. Herrera. 2019. “Anarchism in the Web of Transnational Social Movements.” Journal of World-Systems Research 25 (2): 373–394. Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Potiker et al. 213 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 Chirot, Daniel. 1986. Social Change in the Modern Era. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Connell, Raewyn. 2007. Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science. Cambridge: Polity. Cress, Daniel M. and David A. Snow. 2000. “The Outcomes of Homeless Mobilization: The Influence of Organization, Disruption, Political Mediation, and Framing.” American Journal of Sociology, 105 (4): 1063–1104. Dixon, Marc, Vincent J. Roscigno, and Randy Hodson. 2004. “Unions, Solidarity, and Striking.” Social Forces, 83 (1): 3–33. Fortier, Craig. 2017. Unsettling the Commons: Social Movements Within, Against, and Beyond Settler Colonialism. Winnipeg, MB: ARP Books. Gibson, Morgan Rodgers. 2019. “The Failure of the State and the Rise of Anarchism in Contemporary Anti-systemic Praxis.” New Proposals: Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry 10 (1): 58–63. Graham, Robert. 2015. We Don’t Fear Anarchy—We Invoke It: The First International and the Origins of the Anarchist Movement. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Griswold del Castillo, Richard. 1980. “The Discredited Revolution: The Magonista Capture of Tijuana in 1911.” The Journal of San Diego History, 26 (4): 256–273. Grosfoguel, Ramón. 2006. “World-Systems Analysis in the Context of Transmodernity, Border Thinking, and Global Coloniality.” Review 29(2): 167–187. Grubačić, Andrej and Denis O’Hearn. 2016. Living at the Edges of Capitalism: Adventures in Exile and Mutual Aid. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Guillamón, Agustín. 2014. Ready for Revolution: The CNT Defense Committees in Barcelona, 1933–1938. Oakland, CA: AK Press. ______. 2020. Insurrection: The Bloody Events of Mary 1937 in Barcelona. Chico, CA: AK Press. Hagan, John and Suzanne Hansford-Bowles. 2005. “From Resistance to Activism: The Emergence and Persistence of Activism Among American Vietnam War Resisters in Canada.” Social Movement Studies, 4 (3): 231–259. Hall, Thomas D. and James V. Fenelon. 2004. “The Futures of Indigenous Peoples: 9–11 and the Trajectory of Indigenous Survival and Resistance.” Journal of World-Systems Research, 5 (1): 153-197. Heynen, Nik, and Jason Rhodes. 2012. “Organizing for Survival: From the Civil Rights Movement to Black Anarchism through the Life of Lorenzo Kom’boa Ervin.” ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 11 (3): 393–412. Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Anarchist Anti-Systemic Movements 214 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 Hirsch, Steven J. and Lucien van der Walt. 2014. Anarchism and Syndicalism in the Colonial and Postcolonial World, 1870–1940: The Praxis of National Liberation, Internationalism, and Social Revolution. Leiden: Brill. Ki-Rak, Ha. 1986. A History of the Korean Anarchist Movement. Teagu: Anarchist Publishing Committee. Kom’boa Ervin, Lorenzo. 2021. Anarchism and the Black Revolution. London: Pluto Press. Knapp, Michael, Anja Flach, and Ercan Ayboga. 2016. Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women’s Liberation in Syrian Kurdistan. London: Pluto. Mbah, Sam and I.E. Igariwey. 1997. African Anarchism: The History of a Movement. Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press. Merriman, John. 2014. Massacre: The Life and Death of the Paris Commune. New York: Basic. Mill, John Stuart. 1843. A System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive Volume 1. London: John W. Parker West Strand. Mintz, Frank. 2013. Anarchism and Workers’ Self-Management in Revolutionary Spain. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Plys, Kristin 2016. “Worker self management in the Third World, 1952–1979.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 57(1-2): 3–29. Potiker, Spencer Louis. 2019. “Obstacles to Insurrection: Militarised Border Crossings Hindering the Rojava Liberation Struggle.” Anarchist Studies 27(2): 77–102. ______. 2021. “Exit-With-Autonomy or Autonomy-Without-Exit? Divergent Political Trajectories in Rojava and the Kurdish Regional Government.” Critical Sociology. (https://doi.org/10.1177/08969205211048547). Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Ragin, Charles C. 2004. “Turning the Tables: How Case-Oriented Research Challenges Variable-Oriented Research.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, edited by Henry E. Brady and David Collier. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Ragin, Charles C. and Claude Rubinson. 2009. “The Distinctiveness of Comparative Research.” Pp. 13–34 in The Sage Handbook of Comparative Politics, edited by T. Landman and n. Robinson. Los Angeles: Sage. Ramnath, Maia. 2019. “Non-Western Anarchisms and Postcolonialism.” Pp. 677–695 in The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism, edited by C. Levy and M.S. Adams. Palgrave Macmillan. Robinson, Cedric J. 1980. The Terms of Order: Political Science and the Myth of Leadership. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F08969205211048547 Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Potiker et al. 215 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 ______. 1983. Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Schmidinger, Thomas. 2018. Rojava: Revolution, War and the Future of Syria’s Kurds. London: Pluto. Scott, James C. 2009. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ______. 2017. Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Shantz, Jeff. 2010. Constructive Anarchy: Building Infrastructures of Resistance. Surrey: Ashgate. Simmons, Erica and Nicholas Rush Smith. 2021. Rethinking Comparison: Innovative Methods for Qualitative Political Inquiry. Cambridge University Press. Skirda, Alexandre. 2004. Nestor Makhno: Anarchy’s Cossack: The Struggle for Free Soviets in Ukraine 1917–1921. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Skocpol, Theda and Margaret Somers. 1980. “The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 22(2): 174–197. Smolski, Andrew R., Javier Sethness Castro, and Alexander Reid Ross, Alexander. 2018. “Lessons From Exits Foreclosed: An Exilic Interpretation of the Mexican and Russian Revolutions, 1910–1924.” Capital and Class, 42 (3): 453–488. Taylor, Lawrence D. 1999. “The Magonista Revolt in Baja California: Capitalist Conspiracy or Rebellion de los Pobres.” The Journal of San Diego History 45 (1): 2–31. Tilly, Charles. 1984. Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Turcato, Davide. 2015. Making Sense of Anarchism: Errico Malatesta’s Experiments with Revolution, 1889–1900. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Umoja, Akinyele. 2015. “Maroon: Kuwasi Balagoon and the Evolution of Revolutionary New Afrikan Anarchism.” Science and Society, 79 (2): 196–220. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2002. “New Revolts Against the System.” New Left Review 18. ______. 2003. The Decline of American Power. New York, NY: The New Press. ______. 2004. World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. ______. 2014. “Anti-systemic Movements, Yesterday and Today.” American Sociological Association 20(2): 158–172. Wallerstein, Immanuel, Charles Lemert, and Carlos Aguirre Rojas. 2013. Uncertain Worlds: World-Systems Analysis in Changing Times. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Press. White, Damian F. 2008. Bookchin: A Critical Appraisal. London: Pluto Press. Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Anarchist Anti-Systemic Movements 216 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 Wickham-Crowley, Thomas P. 1993. Guerrillas and Revolution in Latin America: A Comparative Study of Insurgents and Regimes Since 1956. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Williams, Dana M. 2015. “Black Panther Radical Factionalization and the Development of Black Anarchism.” Journal of Black Studies, 46 (7), October: 678–703. ______. 2017. Black Flags and Social Movements: A Sociological Analysis of Movement Anarchism. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Williams, Dana M. and Matthew T. Lee. 2008. “‘We Are Everywhere’: An Ecological Analysis of Organizations in the Anarchist Yellow Pages.” Humanity and Society, 32 (1), February: 45–70. Zibechi, Raúl. 2012. Territories in Resistance: A Cartography of Latin American Social Movements. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Potiker et al. 217 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 Appendix A: Variable Definitions and Codings Variable Definition Coding Central Anarchist Organization Capital-A Anarchist organization is central to the movement 1 = there is a capital-A Anarchist organization 0 = there is not a capital-A Anarchist organization (i.e., anarchistic) Long-Term vs. Short-Term Over or under 5 years of existence for the non-state space 1 = Over 5 years 0 = Under 5 years Liberal Geoculture The era in which liberal political culture (i.e. the use of the state for the changing of society) was the normative way in which anti-systemic movements operationalized themselves (Arrighi et al. 1989) 1 = between 1848 and 1968 0 = before 1848 or after 1988 After Liberal Geoculture After the 1968 crisis of the world- system 1 = post-1968 0= prior to 1968 Before Liberal Geoculture Before the 1848 springtime of nations 1 = prior to 1848 0 = post-1848 Indigenous Participants Racial/ethic minority group members that are internal to the society the commune is within that have been subject to settler colonialism are central in the movement (also see Hall and Fenelon 2004) 1 = indigenous participation 0 = no indigenous participation Periphery State State that the non-state space exists within is in the periphery at that time 1 = periphery 0 = core/semi-periphery Semi-Periphery State State that the non-state space exists within is in the semi-periphery at that time 1 = semi-periphery 0 = core/periphery Core State State that the non-state space exists within is in the core at that time 1 = core 0 = semi-periphery/periphery Core State Repression A core state attempts to repress the non-state space 1 = core state attempts to repress the non-state space 0 = core state does not attempt to repress the non-state space Non-Core State Repression A semi-periphery or periphery state attempts to repress the non-state space 1 = semi-periphery/periphery state attempts to repress the non-state space 0 = semi-periphery/periphery state does not attempt to repress the non- state space Anti-Systemic Political Actor Repression An anti-systemic political actor attempts to repress non-state space 1 = anti-systemic political actor attempts to repress the non-state space 0 = anti-systemic political actors do not attempt to repress the non-state space Journal of World-Systems Research | Vol. 28 Issue 2 | Anarchist Anti-Systemic Movements 218 jwsr.pitt.edu | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2022.1097 Appendix B: Reasoning for World-Systems Position of Cases Non-State Space Country and Duration Position in World-System Reasoning Palmares Colonial Brazil (1605- 1694) Periphery Although Brazil is solidly a semi-periphery country today, colonial Brazil in the 17th century was a slave colony tasked with producing sugar. Paris France (1871) Core Colonial France in the late 19th century was an epicenter of empire and emergent industrial capitalism. Baja Mexico (1911) Periphery Although Mexico today is solidly a semi-periphery country, Mexico in the early 20th century had an economy based on small-scale agricultural production and had yet to industrialize. Ukraine Ukraine (1917-1921) Periphery In the early 20th century, Ukraine was a periphery within Europe. They did not face formal colonization in the same way as the colonies of the Americas, Africa, and the Pacific, but nonetheless had an economy made up of agricultural production and natural resource extraction for the core. Manchuria China (1929- 1931) Periphery Although China is solidly a semi-peripheral country today (some may argue it is emerging to the core and even hegemony within the system) in 1929 it had yet to develop into an industrial power. Its economy was largely made up of small- scale agricultural production at this time. Spain Spain (1936- 1939) Semi-Periphery Although Spain was solidly in the core and even held hegemony at earlier points in the world-system by the mid 20th century they had lost most of their colonial holdings around the world and we argue had slipped into the semi-periphery by the start of the Spanish Civil War. Exarchia Greece (1980- Present) Semi-Periphery We argue that although Greece has today slipped into the periphery of Europe following the financial crisis that hit Greece throughout 2009-2010 it still represents a semi- peripheral over the time period Exarchia has existed. Although Greece is one of the heaviest producers of agriculture in Europe it also has had a robust industrial manufacturing, retail, and shipbuilding and maintenance sector over our time period. Zapatistas Mexico (1994- Present) Semi-Periphery Mexico today is one of the largest 15 economies in the world with a mixture of technological services, industrial manufacturing, and agricultural sectors. Rojava Syria (2012- Present) Periphery Prior to the Syrian Civil War the main economic activities of Syria were agriculture and raw materials. Following the Syrian Civil War the economy of Syria has become disarticulated from the world economy and has de-developed substantially.