Pablo:
> I think your description of anarcho-pacifism is a bit unfair, civil
> disobedience when used properly is a much more useful approach than
> lobbying and requires no money, no hierarchy and can't be stopped through
> the powers that be.

I don't want to critics anarcho-pacifism which I respect. For example,
they have a theory about that if you play at TV non-violent acts during
2 weeks, the world in general will be a better place. Really I like it,
but looks more like a "happy" social experiment idea than a reality.

Of course pacific disobedience is a tool. But on a pragmatic way,
self-defense disobedience also, which includes some "violence" facts
(direct violence). Or can be a mixed theory by using politics (indirect
violence).

But I return you again to main question: Do you want to add a component
of violence (with a scalable view of it) or not?.

If you reply again "no", of course anarcho-pacifism is your way.

Probably Gandhi or similar are a good source of your theories to have
knowledge about how to fight violence using pacifism. But like I said,
there is a system of violence that need to be replace before to deploy
any other system.

So, that theories has a common place, all they were exposed to
repression methods. Maybe is more efficient to finally accept that and
start to practice disobedience on consequence.

> This said I do for example think democratic assemblies
> are useful some times, but never at the scale of a nation-state or under
> the actual democratic systems (to be more specific, only small assemblies
> of say around 300 people, with a very clear purpose and making use of
> direct democracy).

But you can extend that practices using federation. To understand how to
delegate is a prove of knowledge. You can upgrade discussions to
different layers of community. Private, Local, Orography, Global.. That
was used by some Iberian towns long time ago, during feudalism. They
were eradicated but still one community at Spain has something similar
similar. Also take a look to Switzerland, it is a con-federation. Etc..

And again, you need to difference clearly about tactics (short time
facts) and strategy (mid-long time facts).

An assembly is a tactic to coordinate a group of persons for future
actions. This can be implemented on different ways to be more strategic
or not. But for coordinate an assembly you will need a system for
coordination. Which basically is politics.

Finally, demos-cracy is a very corrupted word. 300 people on assemblies
aren't using "real democracy". The problem of democracy (51% system) is
that is a government of majority. So always will be a minority. (99%
against 1%, etc..). They are using assembly tactic that will work for
tactical needs (squat a building/square.., change demonstration routes,
camp on a place, etc). But will have a lot of problems to define
long-term strategies. That should come using another tools...

> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 1:54 AM, psy <epsylon@???> wrote:
>
>> Well, I think that you are talking about different ideas than Amir,
>> Jaromil,...
>>
>>> Your delusion is: "If an Anarchist was a King, everything would be
>>> better".
>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0HtWSlFCAQ
>>
>> That video is nice for teens and people starting to discover anarchism.
>>
>> Basically it is about try to don't get engage to the power or
>> participate and try to convince others to follow that doctrine. This is
>> called anarcho-pacifism. And is a really nice theory but cannot be apply
>> to real practice world. It is simple, because is based on that all
>> population has a reasonable mind and can choose with similar criterion
>> than others which nowadays is a fallacy. So it sounds good, but hasn't
>> so much sense...
>>
>> We can talk about other anarcho-tactics. And some include politics as a
>> tool, not as an end to reach. That's because individuals cannot fight
>> alone against society problems and anarchism is general a very pragmatic
>> knowledge. To give external support for some political parties is a
>> need. Not a mod to be chosen..
>>
>> Take care also with individualism (ego) when you talk about that you are
>> the only political subject of your life. Some liberalism theories
>> approve that way. We should have some red lines between individuals and
>> communities. And then should be really clear.
>>
>> Imagine that we go for your theory. Do you go to convince to violent
>> people to stop being violent?. Are they gonna stop war because we talk
>> with them?. We hope than yes. But probably this will not happen never.
>>
>> So we need to take down first a system of violence. And for that we have
>> different ways. By using violence or by using politics. Occam style can
>> solve it.
>>
>> Depending about your choice, we can talk more about "anarchism".
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>