I think this depends on the rest of the planet and how those two countries/societies arise. We don't really have the luxury of ML and anarchist countries/societies existing outside the context of hegemonic liberalism, so the relations between them are heavily impacted by their relations to global capital.
Rojava isn't particularly anarchist, but it's an okay proxy. They are small, with their conditions heavily dictated by imperialistic and regional power struggles. They are either forced or nearly so to make deals with whatever powers are in their region and not immediately hell-bent on their destruction. They make deals with the US, the Syrian government, with Russia. We can't generalize about political tendencies from this, but we can clearly say that geopolitical context has dominated any question of alliances and relationships to other nations - and that basically all of them have been capitalist due to that context. Ideology is relevant, though. There has not been much in the way of nation-level coordinated support for Rojava by socialists. Part of this is that the fall of the USSR has limited the export of revolution, but another part is active questions of the extent to which Rojava has revolutionary potential, that it's invested in an actual socialist project.
That's also important "it depends" context: when we say anarchist nation/society, to what are we referring? These could take very different forms, some of which may thread perfectly in line with other forms of socialism, some which may not. It's also difficult to predict because of the lack of precedent on a per-tendency basis. Where's the ancom society that needed to interface with China or Vietnam while maintaining its own sovereign territory? We need to build one in order to answer the question. There are too many variables.
But we can be optimistic and proactive in this by building left unity, casting a reasonably wide net while still maintaining some discipline about class conflict, intersectionality, the goal of deconstructing various hierarchies, etc.
I think this depends on the rest of the planet and how those two countries/societies arise. We don't really have the luxury of ML and anarchist countries/societies existing outside the context of hegemonic liberalism, so the relations between them are heavily impacted by their relations to global capital.
Rojava isn't particularly anarchist, but it's an okay proxy. They are small, with their conditions heavily dictated by imperialistic and regional power struggles. They are either forced or nearly so to make deals with whatever powers are in their region and not immediately hell-bent on their destruction. They make deals with the US, the Syrian government, with Russia. We can't generalize about political tendencies from this, but we can clearly say that geopolitical context has dominated any question of alliances and relationships to other nations - and that basically all of them have been capitalist due to that context. Ideology is relevant, though. There has not been much in the way of nation-level coordinated support for Rojava by socialists. Part of this is that the fall of the USSR has limited the export of revolution, but another part is active questions of the extent to which Rojava has revolutionary potential, that it's invested in an actual socialist project.
That's also important "it depends" context: when we say anarchist nation/society, to what are we referring? These could take very different forms, some of which may thread perfectly in line with other forms of socialism, some which may not. It's also difficult to predict because of the lack of precedent on a per-tendency basis. Where's the ancom society that needed to interface with China or Vietnam while maintaining its own sovereign territory? We need to build one in order to answer the question. There are too many variables.
But we can be optimistic and proactive in this by building left unity, casting a reasonably wide net while still maintaining some discipline about class conflict, intersectionality, the goal of deconstructing various hierarchies, etc.
KPAM interfaced with CPC controlled regions during it's existence, and got on just fine.
True, though the CPC wasn't controlling a nation at that point.