Quoting Amir:
"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."

*lol* could you possibly be more in self-conflict? State power is monopoly
on initiation of violence. Electoral politics is a popularity contest to
see who gets to use that power of violence. If you do join the race of
politics, by definition, you are bidding to be at the top of a violent,
centralized hierarchy, of initiation of violence.

If you agree with non-aggression principle, you would want nothing to do
with the state or politics. Which is inherently violent.

Thank you for outing yourself as a statist, while calling yourself
anarchist.

"For anarchists to seize power" *lol*

You are a power hungry statist. No true anarchist would seek power over
others.

I have only power over my own life, and I have no interest in ruling
others. No rulers, no slaves.

As long as there is something called a ruling class, a "government", it
doesn't matter if the ruler is more lenient to the slaves.

Master-slave relationship is still there.

Slavery will end when people stop demanding "government" or someone else to
solve their own problems. And when individuals take %100 full
responsibility of their own lives.

If no one votes, no one applies to a government job, no one files for taxes
or licenses, no one feels the "duty" to obey any outside "authority"
government cannot sustain itself. It will collapse anyways. It is a
self-conflicting, destructive force.

The closest thing actually exists to what you are describing is, the
libertarian party. They want a little bit less slavery, a little bit less
whipping, a little more food for the slaves, change the system from within,
incrementally, but never the total end of master-slave relationship.

See how successful that approach is (or rather it is not) in any country.

Your delusion is: "If an Anarchist was a King, everything would be better".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0HtWSlFCAQ

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Amir <amir@???> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>