The case for economic autarky was made in the period 1930-1960, but I don't think that you can reduce all nationally-based resistance to imperialism as autarky.
Anti-imperialism was not opposition to any international division of labour, only the particularly debilitating conditions that the imperialist division of labour assumed. So Lenin did not oppose trade with the West (indeed he encouraged the purchase of farm and other machinery from the US to develop the USSR). But he did resist the pressure to turn Russia into a bread basket for Europe - which was the natural trajectory for a late developing country at that period. (The policy that combined the attempt to control the USSR's relationship to the world economy was the state's monopoly on foreign trade.)
Stalin never understood Lenin's New Economic Policy, which he first assumed to be simply market reforms and encouraged richer farmers to trade openly on the world market - failing to understand that that would lead them to by-pass Russian industry. When the trade between Russian farmers and American industry got out of control Stalin went to the other extreme and isolated the Soviet Union from the international division of labour altogether. In doing so he sentenced Russia to years of economic backwardness.
Stalin's mistake was to think that it was a case of in or out of the world. Lenin by contrast thought that it was a question of in or out of control of your relationship to the world economy.
So too the non-aligned movement inaugurated at Bandung was less about withdrawing from the world economy than of seeking to take control of it.
The proposition 'against all states' seems to me to be so formal as to be unreal. In essence it means never to seek to take hold of political power in the form that it necessarily assumes: state power. Instead the pure soul of the anti-globalisation protester disdains ever to put his vision into practice, for fear of dirtying himself with everyday business of making a difference.
Lenin had cross words for those who thought that national liberation was a matter of indifference in the global economy. With his winning way with words he called it the 'nascent trend of imperialist economism'. What he meant was that it was cheap of those who enjoyed some degree of national self-determination to scold those who didn't that it was not worth having.
>
>That aside, I think more serious attention should be paid to the
>paranoid, hierarchical, and repressive psychopolitics of so many
>nationalist schemes. Mahathir isn't very admirable; Smith's Rhodesia
>and apartheid South Africa are even less so. And on the left, what
>about the proper critique of socialism in one country? There was a
>lot of paranoia, hierarchy, and repression in Stalin's USSR. Attempts
>to bracket out these things remind me of the folks who point to the
>virtues of Nazi economic policy - the 1% unemployment rate - as if
>the repression of unions could be bracketed out of the model.
>
>Doug
-- James Heartfield