Add new comment

"a global system of human white supremacy"

Fuck off, IDpol!

People all too easily default to claims like, "we failed because too many of the others were not true radicals" or "we failed because the movement was too white and male and middle-class" or "we failed because there's no way we can fight the state with its overwhelming power" or "we failed because we tried to act on things outside our control". These kinds of responses are either melancholic (self-flagellation of ego by superego) or a blame-game corrosive of further cooperation. While we need to question previous assumptions of our strength and any compromises made to ally with non-anarchists, it's much more helpful to think that we *could* have won, but came up against some contingent hurdle which we need to make sense of and find a way around, over, through, etc. For example, high-tech police surveillance was a new threat in the 2000s, and often seemed to make revolt impossible, but it's already being countered with new innovations and there's much more potential to develop new counter-technologies. First off, you have no idea if I'm Indigenous, Black, White, Hispanic, I could be a fucking Martian or a dog with good keyboard skills for all you know. You also don't know if I'm in America, Europe, Russia, South America, or motherfucking Christmas Island. So quit cramming everything into tiny little boxes. Second, the relationship between drop-outs moving to an area and poor people already living there is not necessarily conflictual. It often is, but not always. The Zapatistas were urban Mestizas who moved to a remote Indigenous area and yeah they "brought guns" but I don't think you can call that colonisation. Nor the "tri-racial isolate" communities, nor the Maoist Long March, nor the Beghards migrating eastward en masse. We'd have to be especially careful about colonising and gentrifying if white European or American activists were moving to the global South, though even then, I wouldn't call the Atlantis commune or Jonestown "colonisation". Most often anarchists would have common concerns with existing locals in terms of improving quality of life in a subsistence or petty commodity setting, and fighting commodification and elite land grabs. & there isn't a race question in that case but I understand Tarnac got on pretty well with local farmers. The biggest problem would not so much be locals as not getting massacred by pigs, soldiers, paramilitaries or gangs IMO. Thirdly, in Europe the normal pattern for land projects is that people either squat or buy cheap land in areas which are depopulated. Fourthly, I think the biggest source of colonisation and commodification at the moment is self-colonisation by elite/middle-class members of racialised groups importing "global" capitalist patterns, who become leaders or figureheads of the less-integrated members of the group and come to define what is desirable within the group in dominant Eurocentric terms. A lot of these are "dewesternisers", meaning they explicitly reject colonialism, Eurocentrism, whiteness and so on but still imitate them with a view to outdoing the colonisers at their own game. In India for example, there's far less colonisation involving free-party types who move to beach huts in Goa or wherever, than the type which comes from aggressive "modernisation" by the Hindu-communalist government: demonetisation, population registries, land registries, crackdowns on "encroachers", attacks on social movements, big development projects, "smart city" plans, etc.