Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

d4rk wrote (edited )

I don't think it does actually, It usually depends on definition sometimes. If you have the Peter Coffin idea then obviously it would be Cartesian. If we're to use the Bakuninite definition,

History teaches us that the chief priests of Church and State or also the sworn servants and creatures of these damnable institutions. Whilst consciously deceiving the people and leading them into disaster, these persons are concerned to uphold zealously the sanctity and unapproachability of both establishments. The Church, on the authority of all priests and most politicians, is essential to the proper care of the people’s souls; and the State is indispensable, in their opinion, for the proper maintenance of peace, order, and justice. And the doctrinaires of all schools exclaim in chorus: “Without Church or government progress and civilization is impossible.”

then u/Ziq's critique would hold water. I'd rather ironically go and do the things the Marxists would accuse us of and go with Fash definitions because, in due irony, they have a more accurate description of what we do. Hitler would define it as

...one of the most frightful instruments of terror against the security and independence of the national economy, the solidity of the state, and personal freedom. And chiefly this was what made the concept of democracy a sordid and ridiculous phrase, and held up brotherhood to everlasting scorn in the words: 'And if our comrade you won't be, we'll bash your head in - one, two, three'

Mussolini's Doctine says thus:

it is the purest form of democracy, if the nation be considered as it should be from the point of view of quality rather than quantity, as an idea, the mightiest because the most ethical, the most coherent, the truest, expressing itself in a people ... No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon.

The FBI describes it as:

a belief that society should have no government, laws, police, or any other authority. Having that belief is perfectly legal, and the majority of anarchists in the U.S. advocate change through violence and criminal acts…and that, of course, is against the law.

Anarchism is nothing new to the FBI. One of our first big cases occurred in 1919 when the Bureau of Investigation (as we were called then) investigated a series of anarchist bombings in several U.S. cities. And during the 1970s, the FBI investigated anarchist extremists such as the Weather Underground Organization, which conducted a series of bombing campaigns.

A Neolib site defined it as

an economic system where the group owns the factors of production. The means of production are labor, entrepreneurship, capital goods, and natural resources. German philosopher Karl Marx developed the theory of communism.

He said it was, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." In his view, capitalistic owners would no longer siphon off all the profits. Instead, the proceeds would go to the workers. To Marx, this meant that people would work at what they loved and did well. They would happily contribute these skills for the good of all. The economy would prosper because they would work harder than in capitalism.

"To each according to his need" meant the community would take care of those who couldn't work. It would distribute goods and services to everyone as they required them. Those who were able to work would be motivated by enlightened self-interest.

So far these enemies of ours have a better description and technical understanding of what we are than we within the Community. And all of which so far prove it as a threat to Authority than it is Authoritarian.

4

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

So far these enemies of ours have a better description and technical understanding of what we are than we within the Community. And all of which so far prove it as a threat to Authority than it is Authoritarian.

But something which is alleged by one pole to be a threat, may also have elements of the same. Like a magnet.

For example, radical extremist buddhists, engendering violent insurgent muslim extremists, both share the character of being religious reactionaries. In fact, they are part of a self-propelling, exponential, dynamically reified historical process.

The same could be said of anarchist communism, in that when implemented for example in Catalonia in 1937, there were large scale labor camps and the forced disappearances/executions of political opponents according to partially centrally planned structures, with widespread participation. This is what I was referring to, for example, with my OP. Although, there are a million minor and more common examples closer to the present, in many affinitiy groups you may speak with directly in one's life.

3

d4rk wrote

We all know Horseshoe theory but you recluse-san have just invented wormhole theory, I'm proud of you.

I will focus on this last point, however. I have seen and am developing my theoretics on the possibility of Republicanism to slowly evolve rather than mere democracy in an Anarchist setting.

I have re-read opinions by u/ziq and some of the other members of this site on the topic of democracy and I believe the last point is very much connected to that article and have seen the benefit of civic or affinity groups over Jacobin-style policymaking after the Catalonian Revolution of '36.

I see your point that there were Corporatist structures that exist within the unions of the CNT-FAI assuming a direct Hegemony damn near a party line with individual members forming quite literally a mob. Assuming their numbers, they were quite prone to extreme opinions and thus the ersatz centrally planned structures, labor camps, and forced disappearances. Such is the nature of any organization that gets too big.

As Anarchism is about decentralization I see the benefit of a Republican Organization methodology rather than a Democratic Organization(that is Panunionism or the largest Anarchist Org like the FAI taking the helm) methodology.

2

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

How is Republican Organization different than Democratic Organization? I don't think i understand your terms.

Happy to contribute my mental wormholes to your brain!

3

d4rk wrote

Republican Organization[1] is a theory developed within the 70s to combat the rise of Corporatism in the 30s-60s it was made by the imbecilic American Libertarians but a broken clock is always right twice a day.

As opposed to Democratic Organization, it does not rely on Parties or Consensus but rather policy causes[2]. Instead of parties we have affinity groups that form blocs rather than parties where the vote is centralized and strict policy is decided. You may know them as Lobbies. For example the Gun Lobby is made up of different companies and focus groups having the same interest (whether economic or political) in forwarding Gun Rights. The Money changing hands is just something that exists under Capitalism but you can have the system work (much better I would add) without it.

The idea came from Habermas' The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.

2

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

You're talking about lobbying the government? How does this relate to anarchy, or anarchists for that matter?

3

d4rk wrote

Not Lobbying the government, that just wouldn't be anarchist.

A Republic, in the new sense of the word, is a society made up of Lobbies(Affinity groups) forming blocs within a wider confederated Public Sphere that do concrete and abstract good for the rest of society. This doesn't require any form of government but rather, as our collective has it as a motto, "our struggles are interlinked"

2

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

Why call it a republic?

Why call it the public? Are we really so aligned?

I think this rhetoric, lends itself to the reification of the existing republics. There are many examples of anarchist communism creating structures which are too close to hegemonic structures, and which end up being recuperated as a result. Tactically inefficient

3

d4rk wrote

I think we should go back through the topics one by one

Why call it a republic?

Because of the purported vague nature of the idea of the "people" and the constant threat of strong man rule that usually follows mass organizations, u/ziq and Sitsirya a member of our collective have formed a consensus against the idea of nominal and radical democracy.

The Public, however, is reliable, quantifiable, and consensus-based cause groups whose goals are very much understood and can be done cooperatively and intersectionally. Thus the idea of Anarchist Organization basis has shifted from the people (i.e, Unions, Federations &c.) to the Public (Affinity groups, Advocacies, and Private Organizations)

Why call it the public? Are we really so aligned?

The Public has since gained substance as a concept since the fall of Imperial governments. It has been qualified by Habermas as well as contemporary Political Theorists.

I think this rhetoric, lends itself to the reification of the existing republics.

I agree that there is a tendency to confuse the old political terminologies and the new political terminologies that describe Republics in Syntax. I do agree that much more work should be made in separating the two especially the necessity to change the terminology of one definition to not confuse it with the other with the risk of reification being present at all times. But the fact that there is a definition development within academia is undeniable and a need to renew how we define republics.

There are many examples of anarchist communism creating structures that are too close to hegemonic structures, and which end up being recuperated as a result. Tactically inefficient

I do not disagree with this point either. It was made clear by u/ziq and many members of this site that Anarcho-Communism has a problem with hegemonic structures. As the movement towards Republicanism becomes more pronounced, it sounds the death knells of Anarcho-Communist and Anarcho-Syndicalist organization as I said earlier. Republicanism is to lay bare opinion and to quantify its support not by vote but by inculturation.

2

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

Because of the purported vague nature of the idea of the "people"

"The networked social Public" and "the republic" also have the same issue.

I agree that there is a tendency to confuse the old political terminologies and the new political terminologies that describe Republics in Syntax. I do agree that much more work should be made in separating the two especially the necessity to change the terminology of one definition to not confuse it with the other with the risk of reification being present at all times.

It seems you also acknowledge the issue with simply repurposing old words. A lot of data is lost in transit and communication, for starters.

But the fact that there is a definition development within academia is undeniable and a need to renew how we define republics.

What if we just skip school instead? Why is academia...important to anarchist? Do we need fancy words that badly? Perhaps we can explain our ideas and desires and practices, with common language that is easily understood by people outside our bubble?

Republicanism is to lay bare opinion and to quantify its support not by vote but by inculturation.

I'm curious what this means, I'm sorry but I don't understand it fully I think.

3

d4rk wrote

"The networked social Public" and "the republic" also have the same issue.

-I agree with the former statement which made me make the following point:

「I agree that there is a tendency to confuse the old political terminologies and the new political terminologies that describe Republics in Syntax. I do agree that much more work should be made in separating the two especially the necessity to change the terminology of one definition to not confuse it with the other with the risk of reification being present at all times. 」

You talk about this in the next statement:

It seems you also acknowledge the issue with simply repurposing old words. A lot of data is lost in transit and communication, for starters.

-In terms of Republics, the concept was once very neutral so there isn't exactly much data that was lost. A Republic was simply put, not a monarchy.

Rome was considered a Republic although it was an Empire. Yes, they did not have kings, nor did they have absolute authority placed on one many unless under dictatorship. The Emperor and the Senate was checks and balances against each other. This was by technicality, in the old sense of the word, a Republic.

In the Post-French Revolution, both Jacobin and Bonaparte governments were still technically Republics.

The Dutch, although electing a Prince as their President(Stadtholder), was considered a Republic.

My previous statement couldn't even be considered true for all cases. In my country, we are considered a republic although we still recognize the suzerain authority of tribal and semifeudal leaders like Datus, Apos, and Sultans.

It was only in the latter half of the 20th Century when substance was added to the idea of what it means to be a Republic.

「 ..But the fact that there is a definition [of] development within academia is undeniable and a need to renew how we define republics. 」

Of which you added in the following statement that the organization that can add substance and redefine a common neutral term should stop in its tracks.

What if we just skip school instead? Why is academia...important to anarchist? Do we need fancy words that badly? Perhaps we can explain our ideas and desires and practices, with common language that is easily understood by people outside our bubble?

-I made an article agreeing with the idea of common language debates on concepts. I however recognize that there needs to be at least a Confederate network organization built up by these new public groups to redefine and to promulgate new ideas and keep those ideas and definitions aligned to the concepts of anarchism. Such is the use of the Cathedral to the benefit of the anarchist movement.

I thus concluded with this last point, which you have said you do not understand, and I respect and will not press you further on it.

「 Republicanism is to lay bare opinion and to quantify its support not by vote but by inculturation.」

2