Add new comment

It's happened in incomplete forms before, Bougainville, Chiapas, the Niger Delta, Azawad, various Maoist and nationalist insurgencies, the affected regions become useless for global profiteering and the extractive operations are either shut down entirely or downscaled to a petty commodity level. So far, the problem has been that new politicians, entrepreneurs, gangsters etc take over and the areas which become autonomous slip back inside the system - that's why there needs to be a strong post-left/eco-anarchist anti-politics for these zones to remain resistant. Subsistence, DIY living, local survival networks with or without a petty commodity element are completely normal in most of the peripheral regions but my impression is that very few people embrace a subsistence politics, a lot of them aspire to "modernise" or redistribute power to themselves, and they get easily tricked and misdirected by bosses seeking power. Implying every rural/wilderness/land project is colonial (since I hadn't specified any particular zone). Implying autonomous zones as such are colonial. Completely indefensible claims hidden behind a vicious little comment which added nothing to the discussion. Which LOGICALLY means anarchists should stay in cities under ever-increasing surveillance so as not to offend idpols. Logical deductions of assumptions and implications are NOT "falsely imagined" in someone's "butthurt brain". You now try to gaslight us that the comment didn't imply any of these things and we're crazy to think it did. Logic = madness. Seriously, you belong in an Orwell novel. (Incidentally, the far right do *the exact same thing* with logical criticisms). Safe space policies are based on behaviorist psychology which is a WHITE AMERICAN ideology based on separation of mind from body and the illusion of perfect rational self-control, plus the misreading of emotion/affect as strategic choice. They have the effect of requiring perfect self-control and ideological conformity in a manner which excludes most of the working-class, the abuse-traumatised and others with psychological problems. In practice they are "unsafe" and manipulated by a minority of rhetorically-skilled wannabe dictators who keep everyone else in a state of fear lest they be called-out, viciously abused, then banned. These mini-tyrants will of course feel "safer" from the existential threat they feel when anyone challenges their power. Yeah, I'm awful. I'm Hitler. Look at the multiplication of conduct codes and safe space policies in social centers and online anarchist groups for example. The trick is: not only are they authoritarians disguised as anarchists, they are also adherents of a puritanical ideology which has all its origins in Europe and Euro-America (American behaviorism and cybernetics, German-American puritan anti-body morality, Euro/American/Australian Third Way and Eurocommunism, French poststructuralism, Maoism based on European Marxism). But they spray around the signifiers "Black", "Indigenous", "decolonize", "racist", "white supremacist" until everyone imagines they are actually derived from colonized peoples and that Twitter deplatforming is an ancient Native American custom and the idea that people are just effects of positionalities is some ancient wisdom that everyone except Europeans already knows. I've met idpols who literally think that huge numbers of African workers and peasants are sitting around worrying about white Americans checking their privilege. This kind of ventriloquism!