"It is impossible to "bring" anarchism anywhere,..."
Yes, you did say that. Perhaps, then, I could have opted for a better term than "imperialism." I still perceive a certain form of paternalism in the notion that a movement must take place on a global level if it takes place at all and that it invariably presents the most desirable situation for all individuals. My concern over this regards the social structures that I would expect to emerge from the praxis of such thinking.
I do not consider myself infallible, and I will waste no time in expressing my own misgivings over certain shortcomings of my own thoughts.
For instance, urban, even suburban, population densities would result in mass starvation without external supplies of food and water, a means of transporting such necessities, and the physical energy to make it all happen in the form of farmers, fuel, etc. Such a system cannot last indefinitely, and its participants depend on a certain level of destruction, both local and foreign, to survive. Do we burn the fueling stations on the grounds that they enable the whole mess to take place, or do we create a dialogue to determine how people can rethink their needs, such as whether or not the benefits of living in cities justify the costs, and act in such a way that follows our conclusions? Do we occupy a congressional meeting on food security, or do we subtly reappropriate land and space to begin growing food that will feed everyone? I certainly agree that exclusion and the concept of property present some very great challenges, to the point that I occasionally feel quite despondent when I try to conceptualize the allocation of the means of production. In this way, I feel that ends can justify means in many contexts. Since I cannot effectively reconcile this with my previous illustration of A and B, I suppose I should have held my tongue more. In lieu of tossing about my own perspective, I could have asked more questions.
While acknowledging my own compromised position, I still think that we each lost a bit in translation, so I would like to offer a more specific definition of my terms.
When I wrote of society and power, class distinctions seemed implicit to me. I meant that if a society elevates certain individuals over others, then it does not seem implausible that those individuals would attempt to further assert themselves using the power granted to them by (some) people. I believe that power develops from the ground up. The fact that you or I do not support a certain authority does not mean that others do not; I mean that someone must enable others into positions of power. In instances that the power derived from such support attempts to exert itself over others, I feel that solidarity certainly has its place. In truth, I again find myself in a peculiar position. How do we determine what we mean by supporting power? Can we operate to undermine it without actually making some concessions due to circumstances generated before our births? Should we try in vain to abolish all institution at once (starve,) or should we first effect the changes to which we already have the means and proceed from there? I do not see this as compromise, for we did not ask for such a world when born. I infer from your answer that you would readily agree that recreating the ways we organize ourselves will take a great deal of time. I also infer from the line, "If there was a liberated territory, it would not be hard for them to connect with anarchist and libertarian forces all over the world and aid them in their struggles." that you would also agree that we must make certain concessions to the existence of a system if we expect to operate on a scale involving global communications and travel, assuming that you intend to move "libertarian forces" from one front of your movement to another, which demands some means of supporting the movements and efforts of such people.
By the use of "liberated," at least in the context of my own mental health that you have found issue with, I refer only to the recognition of myself and others as subjects deserving of agency over our own lives and only over the lives of one another with consent. Thus, it follows that we should act in a manner that meets our needs, which we can hardly do without a strong evaluation of the nature of our needs. Here, I find it worth noting that, by, "we," I refer only to individuals that might follow such a line of reasoning, even if they do so only for the sake of this argument. I feel that my definition of "liberated" diverges from yours in that I consider acting to develop change without relying on statist institution liberating. I think that our independence exists, and that we must resist those who impose upon it. I say this not because I find your definition any less valid than mine, but because I wish clarify what I meant previously.
I perceive a great ambiguity in the way most define "direct action." I feel that many radicals fetishize conflict to the point of valuing it over the resolution of conflict. The reclamation of space seems to occur most frequently to challenge false claims of authority; instead of simply occupying spaces, we can further repurpose them. I could elaborate, but I share this with you to explain that I extended this concern of my own to your argument to the result, I must admit, of diverging a ways from the original subject. I intended to explore the idea of rethinking the ways in which we consider authority instead of damning any of its forms dogmatically; practically speaking, I think that we might accomplish more by staying focused on the changes we want for ourselves and dealing with unrequited power dynamics when they arise.
