Add new comment

"when sanctimonious anarchists lecture small, relatively powerless, ethnic identity groups who are trying to resist state or corporate powers."

What part didja miss with me lambasting the national liberation movements seeking to build Nation-States. Did I ever talked about Black Liberation Army or the Chicanx movement, whose primary goal was not to create a State in the first place? Nation-State politics are an issue that is contradictory to any imaginable sort of anarchism (except maybe that bs "State anarchism", that never was a thing anyways). But yet there's also the highlighted problem of over-externalizations that the more statist movements are focused around. Was the BLA or the AIM as fixated on some specific external bogeymen to a point this alienated their fighters from a wider, deeper perspective of their struggle?

The most important point I'm trying to make, here, is how self-defeating it can be when all the antagonization is all forced outwards into some intense polarization at a specific figure, as a frame of reference for people to join not an open struggle, but the organized, controlled management of a struggle by one or a few unitarian (i.e. monopolizing) groupings. What's interesting with Rojava is how it appears to be a rather decentralized and open movement, afaik, which makes it sharply different to other Nation-building movements abroad. But I could be wrong about this, of course.