The further away I get from college, the stranger the academy appears to me. My education as an anarchist came after I graduated, and as a result I was spared some of the seriousness anarchist academics seem to ascribe to pluralizing nouns like anarchy, praxis, or whiteness (lest any readers assume there was just one kind).
It is possible to imagine that identities (as abstractions, at least) don't have to compete with each other, but the default is that they do have to (that is, that some identities are the most down-trodden, or the most crucial to the status quo, and therefore that those identities should be respected more than others and/or that the people most closely resembling those identities get extra cred). Usually this is tacit, but some theories, like some radfeminism and afro-pessimism, are pretty explicit about the foundational role they claim for the oppression of women or black people respectively. And of course to the extent that people treat class as an identity, plenty of folks are all about that as the most foundational, relevant issue.
Anti-imperialism is a term used in a wide variety of contexts, usually by nationalist movements who want to secede from a larger body politic (often in the form of an empire, but also in a multi-ethnic sovereign state) or as a specific theory opposed to capitalism in Marxist–Leninist discourse, derived from Vladimir Lenin's work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. People who categorize themselves as anti-imperialists often state that they are opposed to colonialism, colonial empires, hegemony, imperialism and the territorial expansion of countries.
It's no surprise that anarchists would reject the internet entirely as being used for liberatory purposes. After, it started out as ARPANET by the military, with the obvious intent of further dominating their territory as well as U.S. controlled locations abroad abroad. This ended up working perfectly as a business model as well in late capitalism, with the internet becoming a giant data collection scheme.
A whole lot of years ago I went to the North American Anarchist Gathering in Lawrence, Kansas. While I had been to anarchist assemblies and teach-ins locally, this was the first large and non-regional, but explicitly anarchist event I ever went to. Being from the west coast, it was interesting to encounter anarchists from other parts of the country (this was 2002, before the internet is what it is today).
In the old days we used to call up citizen tribunals to determine guilt or innocence. Or perhaps that was just in movies. I guess we don't know an awful lot about how truth is determined in this world but the news, and the nightly stories about the news seem to have decided that a lot of conjecture and politicking seems to be involved. It is unclear how much that is true but it sure seems to be true and that is more than half the battle.
Crisis is the flavor of the week for politicians and the news media: opioids, borders, student loans, Venezuelan elections - to name just a few recent ones. Calling something a crisis does a lot of things - it mobilizes people towards a goal, opens up funding streams, allows policies to be implemented in the name of health, defense and democracy, and gets people to click on links. It’s a way to get people talking, and more importantly, to get some of them moving.
Someone once told me that I should only begin projects I can complete by myself.
Organizing is the antithesis of such advice. The preferred method of bringing ideas to life for the organizer is a church-like mass.
The focus becomes the abacus. The task itself is secondary, and as a result leaves a vacancy easily filled by fantasy. The greater the fantasy, the more powerless the individual, and the more reliant on the organizer they become.
One of my favorite quotes is the following: 'If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.' Too often I find that the projects I'm interested in participating in suffer one of two fates: They either are too disorganized to ever get off the ground and never last longer than the initial phase of excitement, or they are too structured to be enjoyable, and the 'bossiness' of the organizers kills all motivation to participate. Is there something unique and useful that anarchism can bring to the concept of 'collaboration'?