could you expand on this: We are living the "fallacy of majority", fighting
the "reason of minority".







For the secrets and lies, my PGP key:
https://libbitcoin.dyne.org/julia_tourianski.pgp.asc

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:12 PM, psy <epsylon@???> wrote:

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