Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ziq wrote

an online community I'm in

I'm curious which one?

for various reasons I now identify as a Democratic Confederalist

Even more curious about this, what's the appeal?

7

blowbelow OP wrote (edited )

I'm curious which one?

For anonymity, I won't be specifying the community since it is a very small community. Apologies if that doesn't satisfy your curiosity, I just want to remain anonymous on this account.

Even more curious about this, what's the appeal?

Coming from an Anarchist background, I just found that every modern example of Anarchism I've come across always ended up forming some sort of polity. I just decided that I should be more specific with my label and instead of identifying as an Anarchist, I could identify as something that provides a better idea of what polity might be structured. I just find it to be more well-organized and practical. This isn't to say that it cannot be done in an Anarchist fashion. I may be alone in saying this but I believe it's perfectly possible to organize a polity without a state. Unfortunately that isn't what we've seen in the 1 example of Democratic Confederalism we have, but I believe it is possible, even likely, that it could be seen in other examples of Democratic Confederalism in the future.

5

ziq wrote (edited )

I think if an ideology makes allowances for government (even going as far as preventing people from withdrawing while enforcing majority rule enacted via assemblies), it's always going to result in government. It's a blueprint for forming a government; for ruling a society and forcing the government's will on the individual.

every modern example of Anarchism I've come across always ended up forming some sort of polity.

They're really not anarchism though, just performative libertarian socialism which quickly shows itself to be social democracy as the government becomes cemented.

7

ziq wrote (edited )

Maybe you've been looking for examples of anarchy in the wrong places (the formation of governments instead of the small-scale living and breathing anarchy that pops up all over the place everyday).

6

blowbelow OP wrote (edited )

I think if an ideology makes allowances for government (even going as far as preventing people from withdrawing while enforcing majority rule enacted via assemblies), it's always going to result in government. It's a blueprint for forming a government; for ruling a society and forcing the government's will on the individual.

As I was saying earlier, it would be perfectly possible to create assembly's which are voluntary. In fact, that's what I (and many other Communalists) advocate for. Of course this isn't always the case, but I'm suggesting that this is totally possible and in most cases preferable.

They're really not anarchism though

I think this comes down to definitions. My understanding of Anarchism is (put simply) “without rulers” or in other words the abolition of unjust hierarchies, and unjust hierarchies are not necessary for forming a polity- something which I believe to be important for any large scale Anarchist/Libertarian projects.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

There's no such thing as a just hierarchy and that's not an anarchist position. If Murray admitted his system couldn't be voluntary, idk why any communalist would ignore that reality. Democracy can't be voluntary or no one will accept any democratic mandate they don't like. Communalism adopted on a wide scale is just representative democracy with language that tries to obscure that simple reality.

https://raddle.me/f/okbookchin/145351/in-libertarian-municipalism-bookchin-explained-an-exclusive

Bookchin understood democracy even if a lot of his acolytes are still in denial.

3

[deleted] wrote

5

blowbelow OP wrote

I consider a democracy to be a system in which the people as a whole rule over their own collective affairs.

2