What an interesting subjects, Amir. Thanks! ;-)

Sorry for delay...

>Some members of the Anarchos collective strongly disagreed with its
>calls for participation in municipal electoral campaigns.

Because at some point it supposes an apparently contradiction.

How is possible to destroy "tyranny's house" (structural power) by using
tools provided by itself?. Hasn't this actual system public (known by
majority of humans) mechanisms to feedback cruel facts (ex: labor
slavery systems) that works like a chain for poor educated people but
that societies keep feeding because supposedly doesn't exists a real
alternative?. It is possible to achieve a "pseudo-utopia" goal from
inside an ethical "failed" system?.

Let me talk a bit about this because I think it is really related with
Malina's arguments.

Do you remember "Tout pour le peuple, rien par le peuple"?. It was a
topic during XVIII century related with "Illustrated Despotism" (also
called "Paternalism") in which some guys such as Hobbes talked about
that people around world is living on a kind of constant period of
"teenager mentality" which means that they haven't enough capacities to
manage some complexities from society by themselves.

That idea was extensively critics and defined like an "elitist thinking"
for some intellectual movements because: to give power to an
"illustrated" (or not) minority always it is considered like a "tyranny"
system. My question is from a pragmatic ("anarchist") point of view is:
Is that truth?. Is people ready to manage their own life without a
corrupted system of values/facts by participating more directly in all
processes around them?. Well, maybe not...

But that argument doesn't means that we need to give (gift) all power to
others for rule us, almost indirectly. Directly is another topic,
because we can discuss about if democracy, "asamblearism", etc are
really working outside a theoretical vision or not, but indirectly we
can act by using different tools. Some of them as Malina said are using
intermediate steps between an anarco-individualistic philosophy and a
collective goal (or plan). And I am agree with that, but not on the way
to participate in all instances of power. I think more on
micro-desitions from local to global scope but managed because of
skills. That skills can be based on a meritocratic system or others of
course, but understanding that individuals (people) has limits.
Something like a "Illustrated Democracy" or even better, "Illustrated
Con-Federalism"...

Practicing Libertarian Municipalism but also Mutualism, Cooperativism,
etc.. using "system tools" will provide us some interesting situations
by I don't think that they will solve "power system based" problems
fighted by anarchism long time ago... Also Squatting, P2P Trading
(bitcoin can be here), Self-building, etc. will help us but again aren't
the panacea.

I think more on a "mixed" strategy. Going first for a distributed
capitalism system by taking out the power to central nodes and after
trying to dissolve them on a p2p micro-transactions system.

And that because I think that before, on a non-connected (globalized)
world, doctrines were more extensive an practical for facts. You know..
Marx, Stalin, Trösky.. But, isn't them created on a specific society
conditions?. It is not global scope changing on an "Internationalistic"
perspective?...

That last question is really important because to have a reply can
defines how a revolution (evolution) should be... Has no sense to start
a struggle on a city on a connected world to "change the things", if the
rest gonna pass from that re-action. Same at countries, towns,
neighbourhood, etc levels...

We are living the "fallacy of majority", fighting the "reason of minority".

And this can be changed also from science not only from a "pure"
anarchist point of view. So, that mechanisms that you remind us from
Malina are a need but as I think will not solve all "our" questions
related with political participation.

We need to define more in deep which kind of participation should be a
base to build an alternative. Look at some countries for example, to
vote (participate actively) is an obligation... Is that solving
corruption on that countries?... Rethorical question here, isn't.

So our big quest for future is to educate on ethical values to next
generations by building tools (arguments) for them (and us) from inside
politics organizations but also from outside. We need all tools that we
understand... And if we ignore it of we have dudes, better stop using
them...