Prussia: So, any advice for dealing with America this weekend? :)
Canada: Do not underestimate him. You’re going to want to. He’s going to smile at you and make you feel at home and you’re going to look into those sweet baby blue eyes and wonder how someone so naive could ever come up with he kinds of things he’s capable of. You’re going to forget that he owns the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank. You’re going to forget that he’s got an iron grip on world politics: a global hegemony. You’re going to want to believe that he’s what he presents himself as. You’re going to want to buy into whatever idiotic little show he puts on. You’re going to think you can outsmart him. Don’t.
Prussia: I… uh, I was talking about his birthday party. Are you okay?
From the very beginning (and after a few false starts), the United States substituted pursuit of global hegemony for the practices of classical European (and later on, Japanese) forms of imperialism and colonialism based on territorial occupations. The US did not entirely abandon the objectives of territorial control but sought to exercise that control through forms of local governance that nominally preserved independence but which informally or in some instances formally (as in the cases of South Korea and Taiwan) accepted US hegemony in world affairs. This sometimes took covert violence on the part of the United States and certainly produced a networked set of neocolonial relations with weaker and usually smaller states that operated under US domination. But one of the consequences of the huge burst of financial activity and of the global shifts in productive activity that have occurred over the last thirty years has been to render the language of imperialism and colonialism less relevant than that of the struggle for hegemony. The new imperialism is about the struggle for hegemony – financial hegemony, in particular, though the military dimension continues to be of great importance – rather than struggles for direct control over territory.
David Harvey - “The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism"
anarchist organising tends to constrain itself to the scale of local and that means it can’t effectively challenge capitalism as a global hegemony. this isn’t to say that horizontalism isn’t an admirable ideal or something to strive for, but including it as an imperative for our anticapitalist organising hamstrings our efforts to build structures which can bring about international proletarian revolution and establish a lasting left hegemony. anarchism tends to put the “classless society” cart before the “lasting and powerful leftist institutions” horse.