While I agree that Anarchism has many schools, and not all mutually
exclusive...

PKK as an anarchist, non-hierarchic, freedom-loving organisation? *lol*

(And citing BBC. *lol* because official British television cannot possibly
have a bias... Like UK based oil or weapon manufacturing companies do not
support wars in middle east for more profits... :P)

Ask yourself what happens to people in Rojova who disagrees with Abdullah
Ocalan. Who think he is not a valid leader, but a baby-killing terrorist.
Who thinks he doesn't represent Kurdish people, but has his own agenda.

Let me tell you: They are shot to death by summary execution. So much for
the "Democratic Confederationalism".

Hint: Abdullah Öcalan did not rise to power by voluntary grassroots support
for himself, through nonviolent means. He started a terrorist guerrilla
organisation, and forced his will on people. He is no Gandhi.

I posted here before, according to KCK/PKK main contact (their own
constitution if you will), none of the local councils can ever conflict
with the Kontra-Gel (PKK/KCK military/guerilla) hierarchy, with Abdullah
Ocalan at the top. They can only make decisions the hierarchy allows them
to make.

You are allowed enough freedom to bow to the will of a dictator, in other
words.

If you are against centralized hierarchies of monopolies of violence, PKK
cannot be your example to an ideal organization. PKK has its own hierarchy,
and a very violently enforced one. With Abdullah Ocalan at the very top.
Disagree with him, they'll kill you.

They only give lip service to local communities, democracy, freedom,
self-determination etc. It is like, Kim Jong-Un declaring he is all about
the freedom of North Koreans... It is a public relations policy, or
propaganda.

No violent dictator has ever admitted to being a violent dictator, they all
were "fighting for the freedom of their people". They all had the best
interests of the people at their heart.

If you believe them, you're naive.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Amir <amir@???> wrote:

> Pablo, you made a good outline for a general anarchist theory which
> still needs some development because it leaves out a path for creating
> this society from our current context. Bookchin has very strong
> arguments for a sort of federal democracy by creating civil society
> movements that take political power through local municipalities. In
> Catalonia for instance, there's an anarchist cooperative we work with
> called the CIC (http://cooperativa.cat) organizing small local
> businesses and cooperatives to evade the economic system through
> economic disobedience, such as using the law to avoid paying tax (like
> the big corporations do). The Kurdish movements in Turkey switched from
> a struggle for de jure independence to a struggle for de facto
> independence heavily influenced by Bookchin's ideas of libertarian
> municipalism.
>
> Bookchin's ideas are refreshing because they point to a real path to
> political power that is actually very contemporary and being employed by
> anarchist groups in multiple places. Combined with free market mutualist
> or syndicalist ideas which give a path to economic power, and we have a
> solution for strong thriving anarchist societies. The key is civil
> society development and this is where the postmodernists like Nietzsche
> or Foucault have a massive contribution that point to big flaws in the
> fabric of our moral systems that are life-denying and the propensity for
> lying through rationalist positivism (which makes Objectivism look
> ridiculous). Philosophy influences scientific development and rational
> truth- words like central planning, command and control economy, and ...
> are old fashioned today. Instead we're more likely to use words like
> tipping point, butterfly effect, ...
>
> Ours is an age of movement, uncertainty and transition. By necessity
> anarchism has to change with the times. It feels that this age of
> materialist Marxism has tainted anarchist thought since Proudhon, making
> anarchism anachronistic and dogmatic at times. That's not to say that
> anarcho-communism has nothing valuable to offer. The liberating thing
> about anarchism is that every strain of anarchism (even
> anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism) tells us new interesting
> things, and offers up new strategies and tactics for fighting
> authoritarianism.
>
> By saying you are a proponent of anarcho-communism or anarcho-capitalism
> means you believe that questions of class and economy are the most
> important issues- not our ethics, how we administrate and govern, the
> relations between people and culture. However one philosophy gives us a
> history of experience for organizing economically. The original
> criticism of capitalism emerged from Proudhon, the anarcho-syndicalist
> and first person to call themselves an anarchist.
>
> The other philosophy gives us practical tools like Bitcoin, smart
> contracts and agorism. It also teaches us about economics and the
> destructive role played by central banks and corrupt government
> intervention in the economy. These are all useful, valuable ideas and we
> should not reject ideas completely without studying them all first, and
> then you deciding what to take, and what to leave.
>
> psy:
> > You will cannot practice never anarchism by using capitalism.
> > You always will be subjugated to market rules which are really
> > anti-socials.
>
> That's a very dogmatic thing to say. How do you feel about projects
> organized by the Catalan cooperative which are using the free market to
> support socialist projects. Are they not practicing anarchism because
> they are using capitalism?
>
> I'd argue the opposite. I'd say they are thriving in their work through
> their adoption of contemporary ideas, broadening their thought to all
> ideas of anarchism.
>
> I've seen the opposite. The stifling control and retardation of markets
> which hinders development of good projects. Some of us say to the state:
> give us a free market! We are happy to compete with the giant
> corporations on an equal level. Imagine no copyright, and therefore no
> Microsoft, no proprietary software and a rich successful open source
> market (and therefore free software).
>
> Repeal all the paperwork and bureaucracy, and more people will take
> initiative. Stop giving power to the corporations, and people will start
> doing work that is fulfilling and character developing. Remember it is
> monied interests that control the economy, own all the land and buy up
> the government. They don't follow rules, pay tax and they constantly
> alienate us with spectacle. Meanwhile our life energy is being sapped by
> a freedom-hating cold machine that dominates our minds refusing us to
> live off the land and rigging everything against free-thinking people.
>
> I do agree that neoliberalism is a destructive ideology, but
> neoliberalism actually represents a mutation of Ayn Rand's thought which
> is influenced by Mises. However the general American libertarian
> movement is far richer with people like Henry Thoreau, Lysander Spooner,
> and Rose Wilder Lane. I would more accurately say that the problem is
> capitalist modernity, not all forms of capitalism. And yes, you can be a
> socialist and say that. After all I wouldn't say that all socialists are
> state socialists. There is such a thing as socialism from the bottom up.
> If you like cooperatives, then you are supporting non-authoritarian
> socialism.
>
> Capitalist modernity is a more specific term describing the context of
> our situation. It's refers to a break with old tradition, teleological
> history like liberalist narratives of progress and perfectibility,
> scientific positivist rationalist-obsessed materialism, neoliberalism,
> an obsession with industrialization and urbanization, authoritative
> ideas of a strong nation state with its institutions (administration,
> education, police), laws (masquerading as 'rights') and surveillance.
> The challenge now is to develop a new anarchist philosophy that gives us
> a path to this transition we're experiencing now. And for this, I'm
> strongly pointing people to study the Kurdish movements and Rojava. They
> have developed a highly contemporary anarchist philosophy based off the
> ideas of Nietzsche, Foucault, Bookchin and Proudhon.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Confederalism
>
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/5a7b18b5-0ec3-3d3e-a307-54820a7c6a59
>
> They've also fused this with old mythology which we really need to
> understand because of this new wave of growing nationalism. Mezopotamya
> (now Kurdistan, Iraq, Syria) is 1 of 3 first civilizations in human
> history. The mythologies and how they changed explain how the societies
> were changing, particularly the mother, life and nature worship which
> transformed into mythologies of war, strong men and domination. Here's a
> BBC documentary about it:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPMocsqHnDo
>
> Nietzsche teaches us that we can create our own moral systems. There is
> nothing authoritative or intrinsically right. Just societies and values.
> And this is where it gets exciting- the Kurds are postmodernists. When
> you say this or that isn't anarchism remember Wikipedia:
>
> "Anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism
> does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world
> view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy."
>
> "Many types and traditions of anarchism exist, not all of which are
> mutually exclusive."
>
> Different strategies and tactics from different schools of anarchism can
> be used side by side, and mixed together in different ways to create new
> societies with different values. Anarchism is far too rich to reduce it
> down to a single school or even reject recognized schools in their
> entirety.
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>