Submitted by blowbelow in lobby

Hello there! Without naming names, I heard of this site through an online community I'm in. A little about me: I'm non-binary and I have interests in science and tech in general. More specifically I’m interested in cybersecurity and anonymity. I'm not an expert but I've been doing research on the topic since I was a kid so I hope I could offer some limited advice on how to stay secure and anonymous. Most of my advice is just repeating advice from actual cybersecurity experts since I find a lot of people just repeat shit they’ve seen on Reddit or YouTube.

Politically I used to identify as an Anarchist but for various reasons I now identify as a Democratic Confederalist. However I am still learning about other forms of Left-Libertarianism so I am not stuck to this ideology. I understand that people on this site are typically post-left and I might face some criticism- but I am coming here in good faith with a willingness to learn. All I ask is that I get the same treatment in return.

13

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

subrosa wrote

Greetings! Welcome! Enjoy your stay.

I'll stick to anarchism being much more coherent when it comes to liberty, but I'm fine with democrats, confederalists and bookchinites identifying as anything other than anarchists.

8

blowbelow OP wrote

I'll stick to anarchism being much more coherent when it comes to liberty, but I'm fine with democrats, confederalists and bookchinites identifying as anything other than anarchists.

I find there's sort of a divide among Communalists between those who consider themselves Anarchists and those who just consider themselves Libertarians. I personally feel indiferrent towards being called either an Anarchist or a Libertarian. I just call myself a DemCon because I feel it is the most accurate label I could apply to myself at the moment, but I find myself working with many Anarchists- typically Social Anarchists.

3

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

Fool wrote

Greetings!

I now identify as a Democratic Confederalist

I now identify as Fool. It good to have a label that Fitz.

I am coming here in good faith

Can you describe your faith, and what is so good about it?

🐿️

7

blowbelow OP wrote

Can you describe your faith, and what is so good about it?

Be gay and do crime.

4

Fool wrote (edited )

Hence the Democratic Confederacy - you need laws in order to commit crimes.

Under Anarchy you lose your faith...

I don't think that's a particularly "good" system if your faith requires laws.

/s...quirrel 🐿️

4

blowbelow OP wrote

I don't think that's a particularly "good" system if your faith requires laws.

If I may ask a question without getting downvoted into oblivion, what is wrong with law?

1

Fool wrote

I was largely just making a joke, but this an anarchist dominated website.

Noting I'll probably give a very different to others.

Basically, anything codified into a fixed system will always lead to societal stagnation, and in turn allow power to become consolidation.

Take the 10 commandments - perfectly reasonable as recommendations to not live in mental anguish - but as soon as they're decreed by the divine, they become devoid of the original intent.

3

blowbelow OP wrote

Take the 10 commandments - perfectly reasonable as recommendations to not live in mental anguish - but as soon as they're decreed by the divine, they become devoid of the original intent.

To be completely honest, I don't get the analogy. However even when I identified as an Anarchist I always believed in the concept of having certain conditions/expectations. Primarily the expectation to not infringe on another’s liberty and a consequence to occur if that were to happen. The consequence can be reparations, mediation, rehabilitation, ostracization, etc.

1

Fool wrote (edited )

Consequences are fine, that's how relationships work.

Putting in fixed rules with specific arbiters, punishments, etc. is the pathway to consolidation of power.

With consolidated power comes Grey Squirrels, and ultimately a fight for survival.

🐿️


On a similar topic, the problem with "democratic" anarchy isn't in the voting or even in representation - the problem is in having a fixed system which is not suited to most decision making processes, and will continue to operate once it is clear that it is no longer working. If there are rifts in a society, societies should split and fragment before reforming organically rather than maintain some sort of nebulous Community.


Edit: I'm Fool, I'm not really what should be considered an example of "Anarchism".

4

ziq wrote

How do you enforce law without a monopoly on violence?

2

blowbelow OP wrote

The consequence of violating another's liberty can be reparations, mediation, rehabilitation, ostracization, etc. In some situations, this won’t require any violence. Much of society could ostracize an individual for their criminal acts by refusing to associate and conduct business with them. In other situations laws may need to be enforced by an agency capable of enacting violence (for example counter-terror units) but being capable of enacting violence doesn’t require a monopoly on violence per say.

2

fortifiedmischief wrote

telling people what to do; lack of faith in the individual's ability to do what's best in accordance with the nuance of each situation; assumption that harmful things can be prevented by making them "illegal" ; law quickly becomes a power play; law is never universal and can never take into consideration the particularities and (beautiful) chaos that life is

2