typhotic iceberg 煙霧冰山

I keep seeing some people bring up an argument along the following lines: we should support certain states because they provide critical material support to anti-imperialist or anti-colonial (or looking back in time, antifascist) resistance, and because there is no other alternative for resistance forces to gain that level of material support, it is a betrayal of solidarity to criticize supporting these states.

我一直看到某些人提出類似這樣的論點：我們該支持某些國家，因為它們為反帝國主義或反殖民主義（或回首過去，反法西斯主義）的抵抗提供關鍵性的物質支援；再說，因為抵抗組織沒有其他的辦法取得那種程度的物質支援，批評這些國家的支持是團結的背叛。

As an anti-statist, I cannot help but feel averse to this kind of argument. But is this a justified reaction? Perhaps it's really me being unrealistic, but how do we determine what reality is? Perhaps the answer is: stop being an existential armchair revolutionary, unless you can immediately solve the material problems of the resistance, which are real at every angle, then shut the fuck up.

身為反國家主義者，我不得不對這種論點感到反感。可是這是有道理的反應嗎？或許我是真的不切實際，可是我們如何判斷什麼是實際？或許回答是：不要再繼續當思考存在的足不出戶革命家，除非你現在能解決抵抗組織千方萬確的物質問題，不然你給我閉嘴。

I do not dispute the fact that resistance forces have no other alternative to obtain the kind of material support that states can currently provide. I will also not dispute my inability to immediately solve the problem. What I do dispute is the refusal to question what relying on the state for material support does for resistance in the name of being realistic. The state is not a neutral political tool that any class or camp can use to carry out its own agenda—it is a hierarchical tool designed to reproduce a social order where one class maintains power over others. Under this structure, material support from the state is coercive to resistance in nature. It forces resistance forces to align with the interests of patron states or lose material support; it compromises resistance by making it synonymous with securing power against political enemies, and makes it open to appropriation.

我對抵抗組織沒有其他辦法取得目前國家能給的物質支援這部分沒有爭議。我也不會去爭自己能解決問題的無能。會爭的是為了實際而拒絕疑問依賴國家的物質支援會對抵抗有什麼樣的影響。國家不是任何階級或陣營能用來執行自己的計畫的中立政治工具—它是個製造等級制度的工具，設計目標是再生產維持一個階級對其他階級行駛權力的社會秩序。在這種結構之下，來自國家的物質支援對抵抗有高壓性。抵抗組織被強迫要跟贊助國家的利益保持一致，否則失去物質支援；等同於獲取對抗政治敵人的權力是被損害的抵抗，能被挪用的抵抗。

The threat of the state to resistance is not some far-off hypothetical situation in the future. Its limiting effects are here, developing now. To call this threat assessment unrealistic, to dismiss it as ideological anarchist drivel, is to reveal what kind of reality you wish to ultimately create. It is a reality where Power is not abolished. It is a reality where Power is still treated as a representation of the masses' power—like Arya Zahedi says, it will not be a real anti-imperialist, anti-colonial, or anti-fascist reality, but a spectacle of these resistance forms.

國家對抵抗的危脅不是什麼遙遠未來的假設情況。它的限制效果現在就在場，正在被發展。要說這個威脅評估不切實際，把它當作無治主義者的胡說而不去考慮，是顯示出你最後希望創造的現實是什麼。在這個現實之中，治權並不會被廢除。在這個現實之中，治權仍然被當作是群眾權力的代表—就跟 Arya Zahedi 說的一模一樣，這不會是個真正反帝國主義、反殖民主義或反法西斯主義的現實，反而會是這些抵抗形式的景觀版本。

Thus, the so-called betrayal to solidarity of this kind of anti-statist position is a spectacle as well—a spectacle of solidarity. But my goal will never be to prove that my perspective on reality is the one that is actually correct. No, I am simply asserting again that the realities we want are not aligned, and accepting that in certain realities I must be the enemy. But to me, what's ultimately most important is not how justified it is for others to regard me as an enemy, but to realize the end of all systems organized by maintaining the power of one group over another, and to recognize when the means and ends have diverged to an unacceptable point.

因此，這樣反國家立場對團結所謂的背叛也是個景觀—是團結的景觀。但我的目的絕不是要證明我對現實的視角才是正確的。不，我只是要再次聲明我們想要的現實並不一致，並且接受在某些現實之下我必要有的敵人身份。但對我來說，最後重要的不是別人對我的敵視有沒有道理，而是實現所有靠維持一群相比另一群有更高權力組織的系統的結束，並且認識目標跟手段差異的發展到什麼地步能算是過分。

Perhaps the counterpoint is: you are incapable of making this recognition. Because you're outside the country of resistance, because you haven't done enough reading, and you should just defer to so-and-so opinion which represents the correct perspective. I could read a hundred articles, and I could listen to a million people, but I can't stop thoughts from entering my brain. I cannot force myself to produce an agreement that does not exist, and if that's the issue—that I cannot disagree as an autonomous being, because this use of my autonomy is incorrect—then the problem is even bigger.

或許反駁是：你沒有本事做出這種認識。因為你是在抵抗之國的國外、因為你讀的資料不夠，所以你該遵從某某某代表正確視角的意見。我可以讀一百個文章，可以聽數到百萬人說的話，但我無法阻止進入腦海的思想。我無法強迫自己產生出不存在的同意，而且如果問題是出在這裡的話—如果問題是我不能以自治實體的身份做出爭議，因為那會是錯誤的自治使用—那麼毛病就變得更大了。

I believe that it is not a coincidence that statist talking points—regardless of whether they come from the multipolarity of authoritarian communists or the militarism of anarchists—weaponize deference politics to protect their unassailability. At the heart of this unassailability is a contempt for autonomy, a vanguardist tendency to treat autonomy as an obstacle to effective resistance. To a vanguardist, everyone is an enemy, because everyone has the potential to go against the program of what resistance should be. People are to be managed: we must stop them from thinking, saying, or doing anything that goes against our program, which represents effective resistance.

我認為國家主義的論據—無論來自威權共產主義的多極體系或是無治主義的軍國主義—把遵從政治作為保護無可辯駁的武器不是偶然。在這無可辯駁的中心是自治的蔑視，是先鋒主義的傾向，把自治當作有效性抵抗的妨礙物。對先鋒主義者來說，大家都是敵人，因為大家都有違反抵抗該是什麼的綱領的能力。人民需要的是管理：我們必須阻止他們想、說或做出違反代表有效性抵抗的綱領的事。

Let me question it again: what kind of reality do you people actually want? Do you want a liberated world, or a world where you monopolize the terms of liberation? In your reality, does everyone have revolutionary potential, or is the ability for effective revolt only limited to a certain kind of group? Do you want to end your enemies, or the world that created them? What possibilities does your antagonism foreclose?

我再疑問一次：你們到底要的是什麼樣的現實？你們要的是解放的世界，還是解放條件被你獨攬的世界？在你的現實當中，是大家都有革命的能力，還是有效性的反抗能力只限於某一群人？你要消滅的是敵人，還是製造他們的世界？你的敵意排除了什麼可以發生的事？

The limitations imposed on resistance by State and Capital are the starting point, not the ending point. If resistance forces lack a means, we don't have to defend the states that provide them or dismiss the forces that accept them—we can support the development of means that don't rely on states, especially in moments of lull in resistance. Instead of condemning anti-statism as an unrealistic expectation for resistance, why not redouble our efforts to materially end the reality of the state's hegemony? Unless that really isn't what you want. Unless what you ultimately want is just the victory of people on your side by any means necessary, regardless of ends. Unless you can accept no other reality besides one in which your side's the victor. Unless this is all liberation will ever truly mean.

國家和資本對抵抗制定的限制是起點，不是終點。如果抵抗組織缺了渠道，我們不必為提供渠道的國家做辯護或對接受的組織不予理會—我們可以協助不依賴國家的渠道的發展，特別是在抵抗間歇的時刻。與其譴責反國家主義是對抵抗不切實際的憧憬，不如加倍努力在物質方面上結束國家霸權的現實？除非那真的不是你想要的改變。除非你最後只是想利用一切的手段讓你方的人得到勝利，目標完全不管。除非是你方當勝者之外，什麼現實都無法接受。除非這永遠會是解放能真正的意義。