After reading a bit. It seems like a Democratic system. I didn’t get the details but assuming the people who are appointed to the councils are voted upon. And voting happens within the councils. Then I would say yeah the system is Democratic.
Anarchism could be considered the most democratic system in the world, even if we don’t tend to apply that term
Conversely, since it by definition requires the absence of hierarchies, we wouldn’t have a situation where we are compelled to oppress marginalized groups, no matter how popular the idea may be (I’m thinking here for example of how US liberals say our president has “no choice” but to imprison immigrants and participate in genocide just because there are enough racists that agree we should oppress these groups)
I could go on, but I’m going to shut up now before someone pops out of a well
That’s fair. I think generally anarchists have good ideas. If there is a violent revolution, I would probably end up being your comrade in arms.
I don’t think we would win though. Most people think anarchism is a bad word right now. I can’t imagine recruiting fighters during the revolution under the banner of anarchism. Hell even progressivism isn’t very popular. As always, liberals are the problem.
We may have to have a revolution but I think it needs way more time to cook.
I’d participate in revolution because I’m not so ideologically entrenched that I’d refuse participation any anti-capitalist movement, but my ideal vision would be more aligned to what the Zapatistas have tried to do
Interesting. I’m pretty ignorant about the Zapatistas. Looking over the Wikipedia and they seem all right.
I don’t quite follow you. Do you mean like instead of winning the revolution. You take a chunk of the country create borders and install some kind of anarchy?
This may come as an absolute shock, but this is a post gleefully celebrating the idea of the downfall of a genocidal regime
If you want to discuss anarchist theory, there are much better forums for that than 196. Too many libs here.
So you don’t feel safe answering my question. I won’t force an answer.
I don’t think this is the right place, no
There are liberals and even overt racists present in this thread
Here’s some reading for you
After reading a bit. It seems like a Democratic system. I didn’t get the details but assuming the people who are appointed to the councils are voted upon. And voting happens within the councils. Then I would say yeah the system is Democratic.
Anarchism could be considered the most democratic system in the world, even if we don’t tend to apply that term
Conversely, since it by definition requires the absence of hierarchies, we wouldn’t have a situation where we are compelled to oppress marginalized groups, no matter how popular the idea may be (I’m thinking here for example of how US liberals say our president has “no choice” but to imprison immigrants and participate in genocide just because there are enough racists that agree we should oppress these groups)
I could go on, but I’m going to shut up now before someone pops out of a well
That’s fair. I think generally anarchists have good ideas. If there is a violent revolution, I would probably end up being your comrade in arms.
I don’t think we would win though. Most people think anarchism is a bad word right now. I can’t imagine recruiting fighters during the revolution under the banner of anarchism. Hell even progressivism isn’t very popular. As always, liberals are the problem.
We may have to have a revolution but I think it needs way more time to cook.
I’d participate in revolution because I’m not so ideologically entrenched that I’d refuse participation any anti-capitalist movement, but my ideal vision would be more aligned to what the Zapatistas have tried to do
Interesting. I’m pretty ignorant about the Zapatistas. Looking over the Wikipedia and they seem all right.
I don’t quite follow you. Do you mean like instead of winning the revolution. You take a chunk of the country create borders and install some kind of anarchy?