Add new comment

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. The Indian middle class idolises "modernity" and fantasises about total surveillance and cashless society in a country with a dirt-poor majority, which still has massive illiteracy, low electricity coverage and so on. It seems to me the same is going on on a smaller scale in Native American reservations and suchlike: a group of western-educated, transculturally-literate, liberal/Third Way types take most of the powerful positions and use them to further incorporate these areas into capitalism, often under the cover of a revivalist or idpol agenda. The first things they want are more schools (to westernise kids), more bureaucratic positions for their cronies, local police to enforce their will, development projects with benefits going "locally" (i.e. to their own businesses) and so on. But we're told it's "different" because this time it's not white people doing it. Big fucking deal. Real imperialism is the incorporation of peripheral areas into systems of capitalist exploitation serving the core. You don't have to be from a different race to be a coloniser.