menas

OP made a confusion between what is imperialism and one strategy to confront it.

Imperialism is the state of the world where states compete with each other to accumulate power and ressources. Depending of the context, these states will militarize themselves and enforce nationalism or subsidy their national corporations to exploit weaker countries. And between all countries, the USA is far the most influent in the imperialist system, western countries are very influent. I think we do agree to this point.

But, this is which a degree of influence in imperialism. And, if some states are very weak, every states do participate in imperialism. The very definition of states made them so : to be recognize by other states, having the monopoly of legitimate violence, an army, ...

As materialist we should underline why western countries have this specific place. I think that th statement is not enough : imperialism is the evolution of colonialism, and reproduce some (most) of the relationship between people. And "blaming" seems misleading. This is not about moral, but how we could change things. Opposing to a powerful country is efficient and shall be prioritize; this country may be promoting peace and welfare like Norway.

Is their another states that we shall focus on ? I think their is a western bias. Denouncing the imperialist influence of the Popular Republic of China from the US or western Europe is promoting our one state and is worsting things. But doing the same thing from Mongolia or Vietnam is accurate.

On the strategy, OP is promoting the campism, which basically would oppose to the leading country in imperialism, in defending their strongest opposing state. It was very popular across the communist parties in western countries to promote USSR. Their is some cleaver argument in campism, however their is some known and concerning issue with it too. Campism only analyze relationship between states, and is a lot of the time blind to relationship between people. Nations without states, and people opposing or being autonomous to their own states do exists everywhere. Focusing on their state result in assigning those people to the legitimate nationality. I think we shall support those people and organization to build the structure that let people determined themselves differently than a nationality of a state

We have to invest time for the helpdesk. It's may be ours, or others (in paying for it). However, I think the Odoo experience show how much this economic model is an incentive to get the software as hard as possible to maintain.

Maybe we sall have many cooperatives, independents or hire people instead

at some point, this person will do the same for chicken. That will be insane

I said the exact opposite. Read again

Then I will say, just because we are likely to make the same mistakes over and over is not an excuse to stop doing a thing if it helps, and I cannot subscribe to the belief that just because a thing CAN go wrong that it necessarily MUST go wrong. We can manage our world better with better policies and social structures, to abandon something just because it’s been misused is like not using dinner knives anymore because they’re used for stabbings.

Yep. And to make better policies and social structure, we need to understand why it goes wrong. Modern police has been made with mercenaries, soldiers (18/19e centuries), slave hunters (19/20e centuries), gang members paid to terrorize union members, and nazis. Those people were fired for their skills, and taught others cops to do like them. Because it was need by the ruling class to keep the inequality that favor them : to keep slave in slavery, workers wish small wages, or keep away racialize and colonized people from the infrastructure build with loot of other countries.

I'm not saying that cops are evil people. Some cops know that kind of issues and want to be "a lesser evil", others want to be good but will believe in some stuff that give sense to the violence they are making (racial inequity, nationalism, ... ). In the end, a white collar triggering war, or funding war crime would have a better treatment than a hobo stealing.

My point is : the social structure are stronger than individual will. And the police is a social structure. Again, police as an institution with people, a hierarchy, and an history that produce it. The social function "protect everyone against violence" is important, and is not the police we are talking about.

Yep, I do agree. So maybe we need to define things.

According to Foucault, the police is not about law enforcement. Magistrate interprets laws to make the police actions legals afterward. I would not gave example, but you could read his work on power and punishments. He describes how the use of violence structure the society as a whole, and how it does absolutely not even try to prevent violence in doing so.

It's of course more complex, but to summary : the police as not the same social function before and after the modernisation. For example, miliciens keeping cities safe before that are people with another work, that have to bee miliciens. Everyone that could do so, have to do that work from time to time (the corvée). And they have to protect people. So they would requisitions empty places for people without housings.

The modernization militarize this forces, centralize how they work and shift their mission and recrutements. Cops are now specialize forces, with military training, and a strict hierarchy. Colonization, brutalization of war ("Free company"), enclosures, ...

A lot of anarchists do refers to police with a compatible definition of Foucault and weber : the "monopoly of legitimate violence" This violence could not be broken or diminish if the force got social legitimacy and monopoly. In my previous example, I described the use of violence that is legitimate by default, and could be judge by everyone. Others gave example when this use is not specialize, so diminish this monopoly.

Some could says we want reforms police, and use a different word. We do not. Institution reproduce themselves through the people in it. Even the most social advance organization for "law enforcement" with former cops in it will go wrong. It took time to change one habits

I you okay that police kill us fro moving from a place to another, getting food, or just by racism, I'm not interested in your opinion. But I've got another question : why shall we care of the life of someone who clearly don't give a shit a ours ?

I don't think their could be anarchists society with keeping inequality. So I do agree we could not solves issue link to wealth inequality. But those inequality have to solve first. This is a common point view among libertarian communists, anarcho-communist and anarcho-syndicalists.

Ofr the inter-communities issues, the whole thing is to create common interests :

• if a place have more funds, the production have to be split. To make this solution acceptable, the work needed could be equally distributed among thoses communities. The idea is to prevent wealth accumulation, create link among communities, and make the live more comfortable for everyone. Other solutions may be used, like cultural one to gather people from many places (physical activities, free party, ...)
• Some working places need people from different places to be run. Like hospital, university, or power plant. This common need may prevent those agressions, but otherwise, if one community refuse mediation, some non vital production may be stopped. Like electricity, radio, or other cultural stuff

Again, their is no common recipe. This stuff have to be experiment from now to get more and more efficient.

If you thing that currently, cops are protecting people being abused, you are misinforms. This is not something we have to thing for after the revolution; we have to solve it now. And this is not the sole respectability of anarchists or activists.

In my organisations, we do. We have a procedure to listening victims and gathering their needs. Most of the time, their is material need (and we have a solidarity fund to response), and keep away the aggressor from the place the survivors evolve. If He/sh comply, we start a mediation in order to not let the aggressor alone and let him evolve. If not, that personne is warn that he/she is not welcome in thoses places.

If we threat the survivor again, or if force himself into those places and refuse to leave, we may make him to, by force. If you think that could make us like cops, our comrades could agree, and we may have to justify ourselves in front of our community.

This one of many point of view one "how to deal with violence". Their is not common solution, each place need to inform and try out. We need to be better than fascists with guns and no accountability to the people; that leave a lot place.

Like, withe the helicopter headphone system ?

so USA is a cat's anus ?

Unionize. Make your salary an issue for those who would harass other for profits otherwise