Anarchism brings freedom from phallocentrism or exoticism. The left, without anarchism, is all about control. Anarchism immerses the left into internal organs. Anarchism writes in the feminine, and does it in Cixous’ way. Anarchism reflects the memory of the body.
* What happened between Los Angeles 1992 and Seattle 1999? Los Angeles 1992, an ‘anarchistic’ uprising including many people of color  ends with Seattle 99 where you don’t see many black people. How? Why? Does violence play a role here? The non-violence of anti-globalization movements is not directly connected with Gandhi or Tolstoy. This is something else. Gandhi can be compared with Fanon. Both thought about ways for people who had suffered from violence and who continue to – Fanon suggests an empowering, emancipating, liberating counter-violence, while Gandhi suggests an empowering, emancipating, liberating non-violence. But what about today? What about today’s non-violence doctrine in Western anti-globalization movements? And what about today’s counter-violence doctrine (black-block?) in Western anti-globalization movements?
* If we go back to the pre-1994 period of EZLN, we can remember that Marcos didn’t go to Chiapas for a post-revolution, he went there to organize a modernist-type revolution. Before 1994, EZLN happened through a process of mutuality in Chiapas. Not ended with an utopian heaven, but had a heavenly effect for the Left world. If we can lay aside political correctness for a moment, we can dare say that, although the Mexican government also had a paramilitary branch which killed and wounded many, there were very few countries that would let a Marcos be as he liked with his EZLN in 1994 and afterwards. For example it wouldn’t be possible in the USA, Peru, Russia, China, Turkey or UK. It wouldn’t happen in a ‘real democracy’ (which can’t endure strong oppositions as we recently witnessed when Western governments showed their brutal side to anti-globalisation protestors early in the 2000s in Gothenburg and in Italy) or in a ‘totalitarian country.’ Mexico was an exceptional zone. And from the beginning, in order not to let this exceptional state become isolated and eventual fade away, EZLN/Marcos described it not as a form and not as an ideology, but as an understanding, as an approach to politics. Isn’t this the core principle of ‘new anarchism’ today as well?
* I was in a European capital city with a group of anarchists when the Madrid bombings occurred. My friends were overtly terrified, taking this as a potential attack on themselves. In Turkey, nobody in the anarchist circles would feel anything similar to that. (And it is not because ordinary people in Turkey were less likely to be a victim of an El Kaide bombing. This was proved soon enough when the El Kaide bombed Istanbul heavily, attacking the British bank HSBC Headquarters and the British embassy, killing many Turkish citizens walking on the road, Never before had something like that happened in that European capital city and will probably never happen again.) And when Zinedine Zidane headbutted Materazzi in the World Cup Final in 2006, why did many anarchists and socialists in Turkey tend to see this act as an ‘anti-colonial art work’, while for many anarchists and socialists in Western Europe it was another expression of ‘Islamic male honour’? What is behind this cultural connectedness that exists even when we are talking about radicals? There are many similar situations I can recall from today’s anarchist circles in different parts of the cultural division – but why wasn’t it like that in the times of Malatesta?
4. see the striking text of The Chicago Surrealist Group: “Three Days That Shook the New World Order: The Los Angeles Rebellion of 1992,” Race Traitor No. 2 (Winter 1993), 1-17.),