Add new comment

I'll begin with the questions from The Base BK website which inspired this topic of the week idea.

"What resistance to imperialism should, or can, look like in an anarchist context?"

There are not currently enough anarchists, each separate by themselves, let alone united and coordinated, to form an "effective" opposition to any given weak state, let alone a neo-colonial superpower. Even weaker states, with more resources, military and otherwise, have not been able to effectively or durably oppose or resist imperialism. The state-centric macro approach of this question or framework for analysis can help you understand historical and current power dynamics, geopolitics, resources extraction and exploitation, global labor division, and global inequality, etc. etc., but it's not so useful for individuals, or even groups, to decide what to do about it.

"How can we be more proactive in combating imperialism instead of constantly responding to crises?"

Has any single extractive operation been permanently interrupted? Can it be done? Anyone willing to try?
Has any army been sabotaged by the inhabitants of the territory of that same state, to a degree that they can't carry operations overseas?

. ... . ..

Now I will let loose whatever thoughts I have left on the matter, without linking stuff or giving homework to anyone who reads this.

There is very real global inequality that is evident to the people who get the shit end of the stick. But since nation-states work by trying to foment nationalism and national identity and channel that into support for the state, usually the citizens of that state or of other nation-states, make the discussion of being against or for said government, or whether or not to change the administration and the policies of said state.

The most fervent in decrying against imperialism are currently calling for support against US intervention in Venezuela.
How could anyone who listens to that call even go about doing that?
Actually think through the logistics of the type of actions that would be necessary to actually achieve that, what that would entail. These are the same people that support the legacy of the Bolivarian Revolution and what the continuation of that project will bring. They say that anarchists are "more radical than thou" and childish for wanting to abolish the state "overnight" and that that is childish and absurd. Yet they find feasible to ask for "international support against imperialism". What's this world war that they're envisioning? How is this more feasible or realistic?

Those that support Maduro, even if critically, (whatever that means, right) do they think any country gets to keep their little democratically elected talking head if they happen to like it, but the super powers reeeally really don't? Do they think that there is something that will stand in between the super powers and the resources they want to extract? Can mass quantities of people modify their consumer habits, their economical relations so to change the global flows of capital towards equality or i dunno what? That all sounds like wanting to do the ending of the movie "Us" irl (no spoilers).

The only way that super powers' armies can crumble, other than extinction level events, mutually assured destruction etc. is voluntary mass desertion/defection. But these more recent interventions are way more truculent and tactically tactful, the operatives are more discrete, require less feet on the ground, get a lot of remote support, they are less visible and elicit less protests. They have insidious and covert ways to assert influence (among them, pop culture, soft-power, Spectacle TM etc). If some people want to erect a state (natlib) in order to isolate themselves from these influences, or to have a better place in the global scheme of things, that's worse that someone trying to start a car manufacturing start-up to compete with Toyota. Fidel had his way with Cuba, and the US did the isolating for him, to most people's detriment (btw, Cuban missile crisis was fun, huh?). And speaking of corporations, leftists can't even oppose or disrupt the operations of much vilified companies like Monsanto or Nestle etc etc etc, how do they think that they can form some anti-imperialist opposition? Have those peeps striking at those burger joints gotten better wages, btw? Cuz that seemed more doable, and yet it was an uphill struggle huh?

This lame rant is not to say "it's hopeless, nothing can be done", but rather that the focus is better honed around your current sphere of influence (which you can change in different ways, but it's limited). Temporarily disrupting the patrolling of a single cop car during 1 specific shift in a very small area can be considered over-reaching and beyond the capacities of most individuals, but a more proximate-goal than what some anti-imperialist action would entail. Hell, I mean, who reading this made some new year's resolution or some exercise or diet bs they didn't keep? Who's struggling to make ends meet? People struggling with their day to day lives are going to make international anti-intervention interventions or paralyze, reverse, or redirect the extraction and flows of resources? Let's keep it real. Anti-Imperialism, Anti-Capitalism, Anti-State are mainly opinions you don't directly act upon at that level, you have to get much more micro and concrete for it to make sense.

I hate myself for writing all this, a lot of it was said in the other comments. But i don't know, it kind of ticked me off to see such a low comment count or little discussion on this topic that's so recurrent in leftists circles, and in the media cycle, and in many countries. I imagined leftists being like "see, @ don't know, or care anything about this topic!", and of course i won't convince them otherwise with this rant, but at least i got it out of my system.