Palmyrene wrote:@noemon
Majoritarian elections are rarely consensual since they are binding to people who didn't vote for them. It is even unsatisfactory to people who voted for their chosen candidate since the politician they successfully voted for may go against or unfulfill their promises. I don't know about you but I don't want any others "speaking on behalf of me" or making their own choices and claiming they are my choices.
And there is a way of abandoning electoral politics. Don't practice it. Practising electoral politics will only lead to the proliferation of electoral politics. Look at liberal democracies across the world; are they close to achieveing anarchism? No. In fact many are falling to fascism instead.
There are pathways to anarchism outside of electoral politics which you aren't aware of. General strikes, dual power, building counter institutions, forming affinity groups, etc. all of these not only help building an anarchist society but have also been successful before.
Anarchism is not dependant upon anything. It is independent from all paradigms even ideology itself.
I agree with some of what you say. Anarchism is extraneous to any political paradigm as it doesn't require any ideological root structure, rather the absense of any form of conformity by way of direction or objectivism.
Such as it is, for what it's worth, anarchism is a rejection, or another form of nihilism, that has yet to demonstrate a value worthy of personal pursuit, that has benefits applicable in any wider sense.
From the point of view of agreeing that there is some logical thought that justifies your post, it really doesn't present itself as something worthy of further enquiry.
Ingliz " Repeating ad nauseum, "There is no hierarchy," does not make it true. Magical thinking, a belief that one's thoughts by themselves can bring about effects in the world, is a thought disorder".There is only a hierarchy, if one conforms to that notion, telling someone that you are, in some way 'superior' to them, implies that they are 'inferior' in some way to yourself, which is pretty silly & pretentious.
Some people would be inclined to take those assertions to heart & take the initiative in disuading such harboured thoughts by landing a well aimed punch to that individuals nose with more to come if they dare persist in holding on to those thoughts.
I think that I have just hit the nail on the head with what defines 'anarchism'.