Some anarchists reject electoral politics but that's a mistake. Whether
we use it or not, it exists all the same.

The same argument about law exists- should we participate or is our use
of law, an innate acceptance or form of compliance to a system we want
to see replaced or destroyed.

Well these things both exist, and it's a mistake not to use or engage
with them. They are alternative forms of political power that we can use
for furthering anarchist political objectives.

But when we talk about electoral politics, what is the aim? Is it true
seizing of the political arms of power, or symbolic acts - non-violent
propagandas of the deed?

Within a greater discourse or political plan, symbolic acts are powerful
for pushing towards an objective but only so long as that political base
exists which can take advantage of the shift or movement.

No such thing currently exists.

If instead we talk about seizing political power, it's insightful to
consider the works of Murray Bookchin, especially his overview of
libertarian muncipalism.

As a revolutionary anarchist, I am interested in the path to political
power, not personal aesthetic changes to look or feel like an anarchist.
I want all of society to live under anarchism.

We need to think about political power and re-think the old strategies
that evidently are not working. The work of groups like Iceland's PP,
Podemos, Barcelona en-Comu and HDP (Turkey) are refreshing. What's
interesting is that HDP are also following the political programme of
Bookchin's libertarian municipalism.

This anarchist idea of rejecting the system. Of removing ourselves from
the mechanisms of power, is simply an isolation of anarchist politics
from civilization. For anarchists to seize power, they need to be
engaging with the body politic and thinking how they can seize cities
and towns under their control.

It's interesting that some Anon's have decided to make a political party
but it's executed poorly. Imagine instead if there was a real organized
movement that aimed to get elected locally in small towns across the US,
that together form a mutual federation.

A really important point: electoral politics is not a substitute for
real politics. Bookchin tells us that people develop politically through
the struggle. Electoral politics is a tool, but should always remain
subservient to the wider movement.

What should this wider movement look like?

Well it's clear that the west is suffering a moral and philosophical
deficiency. There can be no organized political movement that
realistically overturns the social conditions of our life without a
serious inquiry into political philosophers like Nietzsche. And this
revolutionary force would have to be disciplined and dedicate their
lives to the cause.

This is the only way to provide the other path to the alt-right. It's
also clear that we need to steal some of their messaging and ideas and
incorporate it into our own coherent ideological system.