It's ok to propose all these systems, but I'll keep on doing whatever I
want :)

In other words, if you try to impose something on me by force, even if it's
by majority's decision, you become my enemy. Fuck democracy.

Anything voluntary, I'm fine with.

Cheers,
Diego

On Feb 2, 2017 7:49 PM, "Julia Tourianski" <juliatourianski@???>
wrote:

>
>
> my 2 cents
>
> Anarchism is the humbling acceptance that:
> 1. Order will always lead to chaos
> 2. Chaos will always birth order
>
> Within a political context this means: States will always result in civil
> unrest, and civil unrest will always result in the creation of States.
>
> Anarchists are valuable in helping speed up the process of breakdown when
> we are in the phase of order. Once the breakdown happens, better, or worse
> governance rises up.
>
> Many of today's anarchists seem to have a vision beyond the transition,
> and a vision detached from marxism, or are simply trying to opt out of
> governance altogether. Crypto anarchism has basic, practical principles,
> and they build tools to enable their principles. Anarcho-capitalists have
> a pretty solid vision of their free-market future...probably in vain
> because monopolies, hierarchies and force seem to be integral to human
> history, and maybe therefore nature. But that's another conversation.
>
> "Nietzsche believed when a culture's sensibilities turn
> to reason, logic and specialised fields of knowledge for Truths about
> the world it is actually a sign of intellectual and spiritual decay."
>
> yeah Amir. For sure. Check out some of Jordan Peterson's lectures on this
> subject.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> For the secrets and lies, my PGP key: https://libbitcoin.dyne.org/
> julia_tourianski.pgp.asc
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:17 PM, psy <epsylon@???> wrote:
>
>> With love and respect, this is my opinion.
>>
>> Firstly, many thanks again Amir for share that interesting info an keep
>> opening a complete need society debate, almost here on the mailing list.
>>
>> By the moment, I have read until half of this text, which I recommend
>> you all to review:
>>
>> http://rojavaplan.com/uploads/ocalan/parezname-en-1.pdf
>>
>> Also I recommend you to read this other interview: ‘A real revolution is
>> a mass of contradictions’:
>>
>> http://paramedic.com/2017/02/01/a-real-revolution-is-a-mass-
>> of-contradictions-interview-with-a-Rojas-volunteer/
>>
>> We all feel our own contradictions (almost those ppl with a min of
>> empathy) which is an interesting first step to start to walk as
>> individuals for a collective goal.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> I think that "better" or "worst" aren't the best terms to use when
>> comparing something so relevant as Democratic Confederalism and Anarchism.
>>
>> Is better mum than daddy?. Mum vs Daddy?. Black vs White?. Trump vs
>> Hillary?. Sorry, I cannot see arguments on that way, Amir.
>>
>> We are talking about different (old) political strategies for different
>> contexts, nothing new.
>>
>> Let's review first some short definitions:
>>
>> "A confederation (also known as a confederacy or league) is a union of
>> sovereign states, united for purposes of common action often in relation
>> to other state."
>>
>> "Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed
>> societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as
>> stateless societies."
>>
>> Theoretically, you can create an anarchist confederation by federating
>> voluntary institutions.
>>
>> So, why "Democratic"?. Are we falling again on majorities decision?.
>>
>> Maybe I don't understand complete this term. Or maybe the plan for
>> west-Occident is to have flags with faces representing a new movement
>> based on old strategies?.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pkk_supporters_london_april_2003.jpg
>>
>> Do you realize that, for example in Spain, we had during 40 years the
>> face of a guy on every place of life?.
>>
>> Really, I think that some ideas should be adapted a bit more related
>> with geopolitical situations (context) but also withe education level
>> and history of the people.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Let me be a bit "punk" with your list of arguments:
>>
>> Amir Taaki:
>> > Why?
>>
>> Why, not? ;-)
>>
>> > - Anarchism is excessively materialist.
>>
>> Are you sure of that first sentence?. Is not decrement (kind of
>> austerity) of capital forces one of the first goals of every school of
>> anarchism?. Are we talking about intellectual materialism?. What means
>> materialist for you, our squats, computers and so on?
>>
>> > Democratic Confederalism is both ideological and materialist,
>> > integrating both sides of the philosophy.
>>
>> Of course, because they are different stuff. One is based on a
>> perspective of life from individuals (of any kind on any place at world)
>> and the other is related with political strategies for a collective
>> empowerment.
>>
>> > In practice anarchists focus on structure and action while neglecting
>> > belief and ideology. Some anarchists even pretend we are post-ideology.
>>
>> This is not true. Not all anarchist schools are Nihilist. Anarchism is
>> not only a question about to be "against" (ideology, state, religion..)
>> is more than this.
>>
>> It is about realize that to "build" something new, we need to "destroy"
>> the old ones. But not just because we hate it or because that we know
>> that is not equal for every life form. No, it is more because we
>> know/feel that we are oppressed so we cannot build openly our way of life.
>>
>> And that is more than ideology, is a philosophy.
>>
>> > - Anarchism is anti-value forming. Anarchism is oriented completely
>> > around negation of things (state, hierarchy, capitalism .etc).
>> > Democratic Confederalism is instead based around positive values, a
>> > driving vision.
>>
>> Here, I am more or less agree with that sentence.
>>
>> I realize a component of negativism on anarchism, mostly based on "no
>> future" frontiers, some romanticism, past fails on wars against
>> different forms of fascism, general stupidity/alienist of contemporary
>> ppl, etc.. for individuals but also for collectives, that I think that
>> can be fixed with for example, exposing seriously some new roads to
>> explore like this Democratic Condeferalism that you are sharing here.
>> For that, thanks again.
>>
>> But please, don't forget that Anarchism has been the house of all
>> minorities during decades.
>>
>> > - Anarchism has no plan of action except abolition of the state (and
>> > capitalism).
>>
>> Well. Is it not enough for a plan?. Where is daily anarchistic
>> pragmatism on it? :-)
>>
>> > Democratic Confederalism has a more realistic agenda for the
>> > strengthening of the "democratic nation" (civil society) that gradually
>> > erodes state influence.
>>
>> Can you define realistic agenda?
>>
>> "The stronger the participation the more powerful is this kind of
>> democracy. While the nation-state is in contrast to democracy, and even
>> denies it, democratic confederalism constitutes a continuous democratic
>> process."[1]
>>
>> > - Anarchism has a strong Marxist influence. Democratic Confederalism
>> > rejects Marxist materialist dialectic.
>>
>> Can you define rejects?
>>
>> "While originally a Marxist–Leninist organization, the organization
>> modified their views as Öcalan began corresponding with Murray Bookchin
>> and incorporating his ideology."[1]
>>
>> > - Anarchism is an incoherent eclectic mix of concepts.
>>
>> Can you define incoherent eclectic mix of concepts?
>>
>> What about anarchistic cosmogonist relativism?
>>
>> "Anarchism or die" is not a sentence really easy to graffiti on streets
>> enough coherent for you?. ;-)
>>
>> > Democratic
>> > Confederalism starts with the idea of nature being divine, and all the
>> > philosophy expands from that basis.
>>
>> Eco-anarchism school.
>>
>> > - Anarchism has been infiltrated by third-wave feminist degeneracy while
>> > Democratic Confederalism strongly affirms gender characteristics.
>> > Focus is on liberation of people, not hedonism.
>>
>> I like this sentence as theoretical:
>>
>> "The central pillars of democratic confederalism are social ecology and
>> anarchist feminism."[1]
>>
>> But, are anarchist feminism correctly (mainstream or not) differentiated
>> nowadays from "third-wave" feminism?
>>
>> > - Democratic Confederalism integrates contemporary philosophical thought
>> > whereas anarchism does not.
>>
>> Sure of that?. Can you explain it a bit more?
>>
>> > - Anarchism has no historical narrative,
>>
>> What are you telling on this, Amir?.
>>
>> I can explain you here some historical narratives for example, about how
>> anarchism frighted against fascism and communism, at same time, during
>> Spanish Civil War. And how they lost...
>>
>> Sad stories told by "our" grandfathers and grandmothers, that were there.
>>
>> Also, I can provide you a lot of details about how many dictatorial
>> presidents of Spain were assassinated by anarchists during history of
>> that country (almost 5 of them) and what was the political context of
>> that violent acts or the new ways taken by society because of that.
>>
>> Aren't those historical narratives about pragmatic decisions made by
>> anarchist?.
>>
>> Do you think that anarchism cannot decide about "way of life" and just
>> only can be used to fight (violent or not) against others?.
>>
>> Are we entering on same box, anarcho-capitalism school (mostly
>> represented by anarchists nowadays) and classic (historical) anarchism?
>>
>> Again, now way, Amir.
>>
>> > whereas Democratic
>> > Confederalism has a strong historical basis that appears in early human
>> > societies across all major continents that explains the origins of the
>> > state.
>>
>> First human (rational) societies were complete anarchist (for that there
>> is also an anarcho-primitive school, that wants to fallback on history).
>>
>> The concept of "state" was invented a lot of time ago, but not before
>> natural rules of survival.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Mostly, What is a state (government)?.
>>
>> How is possible that a definition so transcendental such as "government"
>> on Wikipedia is so short like this:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government
>>
>> I think that before to realize "new" things we should understand/fix
>> those that we have now. And this is not a conservative (reactionary)
>> position, I am talking about pragmatism first. Short on a famous sentence:
>>
>> "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different
>> results."
>>
>> > - Anarchism can be very dogmatic in its refusal of electoral politics
>> > and state power whereas Democratic Confederalism is pragmatic in using
>> > all available means to further its ends, even laying out methodologies
>> > of using local municipalities to gain political power.
>>
>> That's true.
>>
>> > ... many other reasons. I suggest people start studying it. Anarchism is
>> > rubbish, this is the new thing.
>>
>> Thanks for that quest? ;-)
>>
>> > Start here:
>> >
>> > https://www.reddit.com/r/rojava/comments/5h6fho/democratic_
>> confederalism_study_material/
>> >
>> > We have to approach our ideology now like a religion and work from that
>> > basis.
>>
>> I think more than on a "religion" like the unique way to survive (as
>> free individual, but also as society).
>>
>> -----------------
>>
>>
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_confederalism
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>