Add new comment

Yeah I know that's the risks. White (or idpol) anarchist neo-vanguardism; white "settler" projects in the South with no local impact; or getting wrongly vilified as one or other of these. Anyone attempting this would have to be very sensitive to people everywhere having their own problems and worldviews and ways of life, and that this is about autonomy and empowerment and not about someone coming along with all the answers. But I'm also concerned that the dispersal of power and discrediting of capitalism are at the moment going in really reactionary directions and people are getting sucked into dewesternisation capitalism and nationalist, revivalist, fundamentalist kinds of projects which are effectively colonised.

I guess my definition of colonisation today would be the imposition of capitalist monoculture and/or its glocal variants, e.g. commodification of farming, growing dependence on wages or sales instead of subsistence, expansions of schooling, state ID schemes. The main resistance up to now has come from anti-colonial and Marxist-inspired groups, and these define the culture of popular movements in most of the South. I think an effective decolonisation today would be post-left, Situationist, autonomist-like and encompass the kinds of rejection of commodified ways of living that European social movements practiced in the 1970s; I think this is very viable in the world's poorest areas, it would solve a good portion of the problems, empower people who are today rather fatalistic or reactive, and generate potential to actually break statist-capitalist power in these areas (thus "decolonise"), but it would require a paradigm-shift from the Marxist, collectivist, nationalist, liberal etc. views which are currently dominant, and this means we somehow need to get people on the ground in these areas going "wow, this really explains/solves things/provides a way forward". And I think the ideological challenges are different to those we face in the North: collectivism and attachment to gemeinschaft-type communities impedes formation of autonomous-type communities in the rural South whereas in the North the problem is mostly atomisation; clientelistic politics is very different from massified politics; and there's kinds of sexism, homophobia, sexual repression and suchlike of an intensity we rarely encounter in the North, to take a few examples. Now, I'm sure there are people who would accuse anarchists (even local ones) who are trying to convince, say, an Aymara or Yoruba community to replace collective duties with desire-based ludic systems or to loosen sexual norms and recognise the polyamory that's already happening with being a coloniser. At the same time, I think a post-left Aymara or Yoruba community would still be very different from a European or American one, and would also be less colonised, more autonomous, for adopting post-left technologies of power so to speak; they would fuse the anarchist ideas with their own culture which is already anarchic, and produce something more radical than what we already have. The whole "learning from the Other" and "centering the perspectives of the marginalised" and the idpol critique of egoism are actually doing the opposite of this, using the illiberalism and collectivism of less-decomposed groups as a hammer to bash down radical critique.