Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


+3 votes
Most countries in the West are dealing with increased levels of legal and illegal immigration. This is causing tension. I know this is not current 'conventional' radical thinking but I believe it would be better if we helped fix the broken countries so people don't have to leave.  And I don't mean help by exploiting natural resources, creating debt traps, I mean mutual aid on an international level. And maybe we sometimes need to use violence to help topple dictatorships. Why should people be forced to flee their homes and we do nothing to solve the problems they face?
by (250 points)
if i were you i would assume from now on that anarchists are protesting everywhere there is a protest, whether they get noticed or not.

ironically and perhaps more to the point, protesting is not an anarchist pastime. one of the core tenets of anarchist thought is direct action, explicitly referring to not requesting government intervention, since we don't accept governments as legitimate or valid. direct action encourages us to meet our own and each others' needs -- like opening up squats for immigrants as they famously have done in greece, rather than asking the government to house or feed or defend people.

according to us, no governments, whether dictatorships or democracies, "should be allowed to exist." and anarchists around the world are doing what we can to not allow them. which may not be much, but that's a different question.

note: i'm wondering if this thread would be more usefully broken up into smaller questions--like:
why don't anarchists attack china and other dictatorships? (they do)
what counts as an anarchist attack? (big question)
are anarchists attacking things, and supporting things, i don't hear about, (yes, they are) and why might that be? (media blackouts, incoherent anarchists, anarchists frequently don't like to talk to the media because of lies and security, etc)

james, your points and concerns are spot on, imo. others have already expressed some of what i would, so i'll just let my thoughts roll.

the fact that living beings (not just humans) are consistently and horrifically oppressed, controlled, enslaved, broken, destroyed, etc, is undeniable in today's world. how to deal with that when you are a thinking, feeling individual is... a dilemma for most, to put it mildly. i think a good part of that dilemma is the disconnect between what individuals think/feel/want/are capable of, and the ubiquity/power of authoritarian institutions that exist and operate in almost complete opposition to individual autonomy.

whether it is a nation/state or a massive corporation makes no difference to me, other than possibly strategy and tactics. borders and immigration are just aspects of authoritarian control tied to the concept of the nation/state. if you haven't read it, i suggest "the continuing appeal of nationalism" by fredy perlman (

i doubt there is a single "best" way to help others that want and ask for it. each situation needs to be addressed in its own context. but i guess when you talk about toppling a massive corporation or government (again, i see all gov as dictatorships to varying degrees), you are talking about an "enemy" that has virtually infinite resources and support.

my approach would typically be to try to address the problem at its root. to me that points to civilization and mass society. but most people seem to see those as necessary, if not positively desirable. and so i would look at what is possible in the particular context being addressed. the idea that anyone could create a "safe space" - especially in distant locations - is questionable at best. helping them leave that area may be a useful approach. but as you point out, allowing people to leave does not make them safe, it merely removes them from one set of oppressors. and places them closer to others.

i do not see a viable solution at the macro level. at the level of individuals and their relationships, i think solutions need to come from them, based on their context (existing and desired).
bottom line: if the problem can only be seen in the context of nations and borders, then the solution is likely to be based on those same concepts. which is, needless to say, not anarchistic in any sense i am interested in. if, on the other hand, individuals and affinity groups decide to take direct action in ways that can circumvent (or, ideally, destroy) the power of the state, i am all for it.
not a particularly useful response, i know. but i'm glad to see someone new here engaging with these issues.

james, if you care to, take a look at comment #5 on that thread on it addresses a different subject (coronavirus), but i think there are some interesting points in there to chew on. specifically regarding anarchistic behavior and larger, widespread issues of concern.

dot. ¯\(°_o)/¯ no, I'm not saying that at all. (-_-) I don't understand how you arrived at that interpretation. 8-|  I'm commenting on the question about anarchists trying to fix brok countries so the people don't have to migrate, not on the comments. 8^| Westerners have gone to other areas with their perceived noble intentions of trying to "fix" the "broke" areas and end up doing something different that wasn't helpful. It's no a secret. The bat is in the bag. The people of the brok area would be suspicious of the intentions. Probably not too pleased. James' question didn't say anything about peoople in the brok galaxy far, far away... sending a distress signal/asking for help. Perhaps the white savior complex comment was a bit harsh, useless, and not nice thing to write to James. Perhaps vibes of the poem The White Man's Burden: US vs Phillipines would've been more appropiate.

yo zubaz. yea, i got what you were saying. my questions were trying to get you to a) deconstruct the jargon you were using, and b) maybe respond to the questions in good faith -- like, james is getting at something that does deserve some thought, even if his question has a lot going on and waves some red flags (so to speak).

but it's all good.

Please log in or register to answer this question.