Add new comment

Fuck off, IDpol!
Personally I don't think it's very useful to use colonialism and decolonization as a root-metaphor for everything. It makes a lot more sense to me, to think in terms of different ways of life. Indigenous ways of life are/were alternatives to capitalism with non-capitalist economies - subsistence, petty commodity, gift economy, mutual aid, resilience not efficiency - and more immediate social relations and relations to nature which aren't necessarily extractivist or dominating. How do you expect to have an anti-wage-labour movement without available alternatives to wage labour? How do you envisage people meeting their needs instead of wage labour? The expanding church absorbed local pagan traditions as saint-cults, and each time resistance emerged to/within the church, it took the form of a new cult. Many of these were absorbed as monastic orders, others were suppressed as heresies after carving out their own territories for awhile. They cover the whole range from ultra-authoritarian proto-Calvinists like the Jesuits, through to quasi-anarchist antinomians like the Anabaptists, Adamites, Beghards. I'm not sure TBH. I don't think people arrive at post-left anarchy mainly by reading stuff, it comes from desire. But the ideas need to be around for the desire to have the hooks to attach to. I've mentioned a few times that Latin American movements manage to politicise communities, and they use stuff inspired by Freire, but other that this I've struggled to find details. Generally they're encouraging Marxism but the same thing would work with post-left anarchy, eco-anarchy, egoism etc. I think it kinda starts with: what's the problems round here, followed by: what can you/we do to solve the problems round here (done as discussion groups not propaganda), used as a lever to show that things are fucked because capitalism and that they can be unfucked to some degree by autonomous action plus people feel more empowered. Like, OK, suppose it's a Brazilian shanty-town and there's problems with police violence, the response might be organise to confront the police or it might be organise an early-warning system when they show up. The problem might be food shortages, the solution might be guerrilla gardening or making a rural co-op in the surrounding area. The organising could be very similar to how the Marxists do it, but with better politics. I think there's two big differences between post-left anarchy and Marxism which are relevant to politicising communities: the rejection of compulsory collectivism and the politic. The Franciscans were pretty radical at first but got recuperated I think. I daresay the church-monastery relation was a patron-client structure, the central power sought loyalty on a few axes in return for supporting otherwise-autonomous groups. Also the medieval church was basically the welfare state of its day, running most of the education, healthcare, poor relief, orphanages, elderly care, proto-psychology, etc, In any case there were multiple stages to this, beginning with the fraying of Roman power, the reliance on recuperated barbarians as border-guards and the ultimate implosion of the empire, growing autonomy of peasants, the rise of clans based on warlords, and then the rise of feudal lords based on the provision of castles to protect from bandits. Rebuilding these kinds of relations, or reinventing new kinds of systems which aren't capitalist or ecologically or socially alienated, is and always was an important part of anarchism. I don't think race has any particular place in this, besides the fact that anarchist communities shouldn't be proactively racist (& in the same way shouldn't be discriminating based on any other spook). Anti-capitalism has a major place because capitalism is today the main way the elites of the North plunder the South, as well as being one of the biggest forms of alienation. But it's also absolutely essential to keep the focus on desire, agency and fighting the system.