Add new comment

"Wouldn't making categorical statements about liberatory struggles be guaranteed to fail?"

Why would it? Isn't there a common trait through all these, that is anti-anarchist at the core?

What you're saying can be applied to the Algerian national liberation and to Israel independence, yet for very different reasons of course. But both had the same problem: their clinging to the Nation-State as the politically realist, "unavoidable" answer to their problems. A solution that ended up serving the interest of a gang of oligarchs. Is there an example where this clinging to the State didn't turn into yet another kind of authoritarianism and capitalism? Maybe Angola's MPLA.. especially for how it kicked out the most brutal White supremacist force of the '70s-'80s. But these relatively "good guys", just like their Castrist comrades, got their own political agenda. I'd like to know more about the situation in Angola since the civil war ended.

BUT I do feel that the topic is passé... maybe irrelevant. It's an old debate that I thought was settled. As the anarcho-left idiots are still lauding national liberation as a revolutionary option (just like they never learn from history), the neonazis and other fascists these days have adopted the autonomist warfare that anarchists would be "expected" to be into. A neonazi shooting a Mosque in Christchurch is answered by a streetcar being shot at in Utrecht. With school shootings in between. This trend has been growing lately and you can't ignore it. These people aren't interested in Nation-State building... they understood that if you destabilize society enough there's a real possibility to go back to a feudal, tribalist, proto-fascist "utopia", like where present-day Chechnya has been diving head-first into.