Sup Bootlickers, I'm a 15 year old Arab Syrian Anarchist and new to these forums. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15016306
Hi, I'm Palmyrene (if you couldn't tell) and I've recently joined this forum. I've lurked here before and started a couple of small threads when I first joined (they all went somewhat swimmingly). I'm an anarchist, the mutualist/Proudhonist kind and my ideological positions reflect that. I'm also a 15 year old Arab living and born in Syria. I'm keenly aware of my country's politics and I'm interested in starting another revolution albeit more successful than the previous one.

Note that this doesn't mean I believe in the absolute chaos and discord. Such stereotypes do not reflect what a majority of anarchists believe in. So what is Anarchism then? To put it simply, Anarchism is a political tendency with a long history, the core truth of which is that we all get along better–individually and collectively–if we keep the processes of social organization simple, local and responsive to new conditions and desires.

For a more elaborate answer designed for you sophisticated blokes here's Kropotkin's take on Anarchism:


ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government – harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as tosubstitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international temporary or more or less permanent – for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary – as is seen in organic life at large – harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the state.



That sounds alright, doesn’t it? We’re not talking about Eden here. A lot of conflict, and a constant labor for liberty, is tucked away in that phrase about “ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium.” Reading Kropotkin it’s hard to imagine why folks so immediately back away from the very thought of anarchism. After all, the “no government system” ought simply to be the vanishing point–which is to say, the point of perfection–of any government truly of and by the people. And isn’t that what we’re fighting for?

To make this more clear for Americans, Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that ‘the best government is that which governs least,’ and that which governs least is no government at all. The most flexible, simple, and local government is no government.

If you have more questions about anarchism make sure to reply or PM me. I'll be happy to answer. ;)
#15016310
As we say: "be the change you want to see".

I am a centrist, liberal, social welfare. I've had a long day and I'm half asleep. I also prefer to demonstrate my ideology by standing by those principles in the topics rather than exclaiming something. These labels also mean different things to different people. I have voted Labour, Tories, Lib Dems, depending on the circumstances and what I reason to be fair at the time.
#15016311
@noemon

You're a social welfare? Are you composed of food stamps or something. /s

Ehhh, I have particular issues with centrism as an ideology since it can get a little ridiculous at times especially in areas where there's a clear good and bad. For example, being centrist on the abortion issue or Palestinian-Israeli conflict. There are cases of clear cut oppression that centrists, in their vow of neutrality, simply cannot properly address. As a result centrism aids in oppression due to it's inactivity and political quietism.

Basically it supports the status quo and legitimatizes state power to oppress. At least that's my take on it.

EDIT: There's also other stuff like how it gives power to fascists by giving them platform. Centrists believe that every ideology should be given platform and be taken seriously.

However you can't have civil, rational debate with someone who says "I think black people should die because they make me feel uncomfortable". That isn't a statement worthy of civility because it is a fundamentally barbaric one. Barbarism and civility do not work together.
#15016313
Centrism is not about being neutral, in the sense of apathy but balanced. I have a clear stance in both of those topics which is present in the forum. All democratic political parties legitimise state power and the adherence to the status quo.
#15016316
The purported ideology of the US is:

a) irrelevant to its foreign policy in Syria, even if the US were not a liberal democracy it would still be acting this way in this particular.
b) irrelevant on whether liberal democracy as an ideology is good for you and your country.

Liberal democracy offers citizens the greatest amount of freedom as far as I can tell.
#15016318
@noemon


Liberal democracy offers citizens the greatest amount of freedom as far as I can tell.



Well you haven't looked far enough. Anarchism offers the greatest amount of freedom. Liberal democracy is a farce. It's not even particularly democratic what with all the special interests dominating it's system.

You're right, I want the most freedom for my citizens but liberal democracy will not provide that.

And another key thing you forgot: being a liberal democracy means that the US can justify its own interference in the affairs of others as "maintaining freedom and democracy".
#15016322
noemon wrote:Liberal democracy is

a) your only chance and pathway to anarchism.
b) the only proven real system that provides tangible human freedom enshrined in law.

Anarchism is merely a shade of the spectrum of a liberal democratic polity.


I completely disagree. Anarchism is not compatible with electoral politics and all the compromises and corruption it encapsulates. Anarchism is in opposition to both the state and capitalism. A liberal democracy is both of these.

You cannot have two of the things anarchism opposes and simultaneously say that those two things will lead to anarchism. Anarchism isn't on the right-left spectrum as well specifically because there is no government or capitalism.

Further, law does not defend anything. Crimes both against others and human rights occur despite laws saying otherwise. Syria for example has free speech in it's laws but we both know that free speech does not exist in Syria.
#15016325
Electoral politics can only become redundant when consensus has been achieved by practising electoral(consensual) politics to the point where they become unnecessary. It is not possible to abandon electoral politics without first practising electoral politics. Anarchism is not possible outside the liberal paradigm as there is no pathway to that goal. Anarchism is entirely dependent on a consensual, self sustaining and autonomous liberal state. It is not possible within any illiberal paradigm.
#15016341
@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.
#15016363
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.


Not practising electoral politics is dictatorship/autocracy not anarchism and the chances of reaching social-wide consensus are absolutely zero as there is no mechanism to reach such a consensus, the only avenue for consensus is electoral politics in liberal polities. Anarchism is totally dependent on liberalism and cannot exist outside of it. It is simply not possible, convincing yourself otherwise is merely wishful thinking.
#15016367
noemon wrote:Not practising electoral politics is dictatorship/autocracy not anarchism


The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. There is an alternative to both electoral politics and dictatorship. You don't have to choose between those two extremes.

and the chances of reaching social-wide consensus are absolutely zero as there is no mechanism to reach such a consensus, the only avenue for consensus is electoral politics in liberal polities.


Consensus is obtained internally in communities via association. People with shared interests and goals would come together to further those goals. This is known as the Federative Principle.

Anarchism is totally dependent on liberalism and cannot exist outside of it. It is simply not possible, convincing yourself otherwise is merely wishful thinking.


I feel like we have different definitions of liberalism. You have yet to prove that anarchism is dependent on liberalism. Anarchism is not connected to the liberal tradition at all. It is its own tradition.
#15016368
Palmyrene wrote:Hi, I'm Palmyrene (if you couldn't tell) and I've recently joined this forum. I've lurked here before and started a couple of small threads when I first joined (they all went somewhat swimmingly). I'm an anarchist, the mutualist/Proudhonist kind and my ideological positions reflect that. I'm also a 15 year old Arab living and born in Syria. I'm keenly aware of my country's politics and I'm interested in starting another revolution albeit more successful than the previous one.

Note that this doesn't mean I believe in the absolute chaos and discord. Such stereotypes do not reflect what a majority of anarchists believe in. So what is Anarchism then? To put it simply, Anarchism is a political tendency with a long history, the core truth of which is that we all get along better–individually and collectively–if we keep the processes of social organization simple, local and responsive to new conditions and desires.

For a more elaborate answer designed for you sophisticated blokes here's Kropotkin's take on Anarchism:



That sounds alright, doesn’t it? We’re not talking about Eden here. A lot of conflict, and a constant labor for liberty, is tucked away in that phrase about “ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium.” Reading Kropotkin it’s hard to imagine why folks so immediately back away from the very thought of anarchism. After all, the “no government system” ought simply to be the vanishing point–which is to say, the point of perfection–of any government truly of and by the people. And isn’t that what we’re fighting for?

To make this more clear for Americans, Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that ‘the best government is that which governs least,’ and that which governs least is no government at all. The most flexible, simple, and local government is no government.

If you have more questions about anarchism make sure to reply or PM me. I'll be happy to answer. ;)


Welcome, @Palmyrene Thanks for your thoughtful post.

Reading your Kropotkin quote, I was struck how similar rhetorically it is to the usual libertarian presentation. My reservation with anarchism (and libertarianism as well) is summed up in the Jeffersonian motto "that government which governs least governs best." Specifically, this doesn't address the fact that social models that rely on force are not limited to formalized government institutions. Removing one source of oppression while leaving others standing usually makes things worse, in an analogous way that reducing the number of businesses supplying a product makes things worse.

In place of the Jeffersonian motto, I would substitute the following three-part credo:

1) Government is not the solution. Government is not the problem. Government is the tool of collective public purpose.

2) That government which governs least governs least. That government that governs best governs best. There is no causal connection between these two statements.

3) There is no ideal size of government. The size of government is determined by the collective public purpose.


I wholeheartedly support ground-up organization revolving around worker co-ops, etc. This does not, in the slightest, diminish the absolute requirement for national governments to support its citizens, via resources only it can muster.

Also, local organization is far from being a panacea. It can be, and often is, more oppressive than state and national organization. A glaring example of this is the US local school district system, which uses local taxes of rich neighborhoods to perpetuate and intensify class/racial disparities.

Society, as a complex adaptive system, requires multiple lines of signaling/feedback (vertical and horizontal, operating in all directions simultaneously), and a agile balance of distributed and centralized control.

How specifically to achieve all this is another question altogether!
#15016369
I have already explained why anarchism is dependent on liberalism. Anarchism is the state of liberal evolution at which consensual politics have evolved to the stage of no longer requiring an electoral system and that can only happen when then state becomes:

a) autonomous
b) self-sustaining
c) consensual

While a) can exist outside liberal polities, b) and c) cannot. Liberalism is when the state take its legitimacy from its social contract with the people making it both self-sustaining and consensual.

Liberal polities are not a matter of definition, they exist and they are real. Anarchist philosophy has only developed inside liberal political civilisations because it can only develop within a democracy.

The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. There is an alternative to both electoral politics and dictatorship. You don't have to choose between those two extremes.


That is not possible. A social or ethnic unit is either ruled by a king, dictator or it rules itself through the social contract it makes with its own self. A political system is either externally ordained or self-derived. Anarchism can only find its expression in a self-derived system and the only self-derived system is liberal democracy.
#15016370
Welcome to the forums.

What kind of anarchist are you?
noemon wrote:I have already explained why anarchism is dependent on liberalism. Anarchism is the state of liberal evolution at which consensual politics have evolved to the stage of no longer requiring an electoral system and that can only happen when then state becomes:

a) autonomous
b) self-sustaining
c) consensual

While a) can exist outside liberal polities, b) and c) cannot. Liberalism is when the state take its legitimacy from its social contract with the people making it both self-sustaining and consensual.

Liberal polities are not a matter of definition, they exist and they are real. Anarchist philosophy has only developed inside liberal political civilisations because it can only develop within a democracy.


I agree. Further, I will say that anarchism is not achievable. It's an asymptotic line we will never get to. I would also argue that anarchism, if achieved, would immediately move towards some sort of liberal democracy.

Anarchism = ephemeral
Last edited by Rancid on 07 Jul 2019 03:00, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 25
Liberalism Is Corrupt

You're all filthy liberals including you @SSDR , […]

I wonder if there'll be a smoked kipper cult with […]

Trump and Russiagate

Trump's playbook: The broad masses of a populati[…]

Why would you think that? :) Why not read it[…]