Radical Left Politics

[Seve]

I don't know if anyone here, is into this sort of stuff. But I'm open to discussing both Anarchism and Socialism with people if they'd find that interesting or helpful. I know these are not beginners subjects as far s politics goes, but I think given the times we are living in discussion of them might prove useful. I'm open to any questions no matter how basic. I know that as an old soul I find Anarchism a natural fit for me politically. I also am pretty well versed in Socialism. If people aren't interested that's fine. I just thought I'd put it out there. 

[Sam K]

I'm Left-Libertarian myself, which I think finds its logical conclusion in a combination of anarchism and voluntary socialism.  I think the only way to get something like what I want to see out of society politically, though, is a resource-based economy or something like it.  I'm a signatory of the Free World Charter and I also support the idea of cooperative business supplanting the profit-driven, corporate model.  Of course, living as I do in Texas, where the rivers run red with conservatism, I'm currently limited in the extent to which I can put these ideas into action in my own life, but hey, I joined a credit union recently! ;)

Edited February 11, 2017 by Sam K

[Seve]

That's really great! I have a friend whose a left-libertarian as well. I lean more toward Arnarcho-communism although I'm definitely an anarcho-pacifist. I'm in the middle of reading a Peter Kropotkin Anthology, which I'm thoroughly enjoying. I also have a couple good friends of mine who are socialists. I've heard of the Resource-based Economy a long time ago. I really like that idea. I'm just realizing as an anarchist, that if the RBE were mostly run with technology you could elect delegates who would keep the machines running, and they'd hopefully be easily recall able in case of corruption. It sucks that you live in a conservative state as far as your politics goes. It sounds like your'e in young soul country! :) 

[Sam K]

Aw, I don't mind Texas that much.  It isn't the state's fault I'm Old. ;)

[Nadine]

My preferred political system would be anarchy, as well. I think that a resource based economy would be very compatible with an anarchic political system, I would even say that anarchy is inherent in a resource based economy. Anarchy has become to be identified with chaos and destruction, but I'm referring to it in the original sense of the word as "lack of a supreme authority", giving each individual complete sovereignity over his own life. 

[AnnaD]

I am an anarchist. I have often wanted to change my last name to Chist, but I haven't. I imagine it is easy for Old Souls to see the value of anarchism. 

I wonder about how research, development and science, technology, engineering and maths fit into anarchism. I guess it depends on the group of individuals. I ask this because I was involved (at a young age) with some anarchists who mainly had university degrees, but who were kind of lets invent the wheel. I don't want to invent the wheel, I want to go by best practice and evidence based research, not lets invent the fucking wheel everytime. Just saying. I would be a bit of a nerdy lets check the facts anarchist, if that is alright. Sorry - gathering my thoughts, the group I was with were all lets start again, from the beginning, like separatist anarchists, I am much more lazy, much more the way of work smarter not harder, and I am wanting to use the wisdom, technology, research and development gleaned from the ill gotten gains of a non Anarchist civilisation, for an Anarchist civilization. At this point I become a hoarder as regards Archives of knowledge and technology, and wisdom, that has been gained throughout civilization, for the benefit of current and future generations. Lets update the wheel with new technology and research but still USE a wheel. Dont throw the baby out with the bathwater... etc ....  needless to say I was not an anarchist for a while after divorcing myself fromthis outfit.

Edited February 11, 2017 by AnnaD
elaboration..

[Sarah]

Would true anarchy even be possible with so many people who seem to want and/or need to be told what to do by someone "above" them? Maybe at some point in the future it'll work... but I can't see it working very well at the moment, at least not on a global scale.

[AnnaD]

Sarah said 

17 minutes ago, Sarah said:

Would true anarchy even be possible with so many people who seem to want and/or need to be told what to do by someone "above" them? Maybe at some point in the future it'll work... but I can't see it working very well at the moment, at least not on a global scale.

 

Exactly, Sarah. What happens when Anarchists want to work with each other, gain traction, galvanise, form momentum, build on momentum, get things done (instead of debating how to get things done without making choices), and (dreaded word) establish pathways for best practice? I can see a lot of variation here, which is fine, diversity is great, but also so is successful clinically proven ways of achieving goals in sustainable and efficient ways. For instance, you don't want to go into an emergency department (the Anarchist wing) of the local hospital with chest pain, and instead of giving you morphine, you get um paracetamol, reiki, homeopathic rescue remedy, and blessings. Ya know, that just wouldn't cut it. 

 

Or instead of using email, we have Homing Pigeon mail with messages flown worldwide. I have nothing against pigeons. I am all for pigeons. But you know, you do you, and we have the benefits of (ill gotten gains from civilizations of young soul technology and exploitation) science, technology, engineering and maths already here... so I am keen to work with anarchists from a lets go from here level rather than a lets destroy the world, get all the resources and rebuild again type scenario. I am all for saving and archiving ...

[Sam K]

4 hours ago, Sarah said:

Would true anarchy even be possible with so many people who seem to want and/or need to be told what to do by someone "above" them? Maybe at some point in the future it'll work... but I can't see it working very well at the moment, at least not on a global scale.

No, it wouldn't, and this is why I don't advocate any sort of revolution to try to install such a system overnight.  That sort of thing has been attempted before, and it always fails spectacularly.  Better ways of organizing a society arise organically when that society is ready for them.  Our world, by and large, is not ready (for this particular change anyway; it's ripe for reform in less drastic ways).  It's getting closer, though, and in the meantime I think it's important that there are people working to begin putting the first pieces in place, seeding and cultivating the ideas that will eventually grow into that future society.

[Maxim [memorial profile]]

There are numerous communities throughout the world, large and small, that are experiments in living that reflects older soul values.  A friend of mine loves the Tamera community in Portugal. Whether it is called anarchy, resource based economy, left libertarian etc an evolution over time is what is happening and people will be naturally attracted to those things that work and makes sense.  I think we often get in trouble by expecting too much too fast.  "Utopia NOW!" I don't believe in utopia but rather a continuous evolution.  Where I'm living now in NorthernCaliforia is crawling with old souls.  Still we are barely into the Mature Soul age so as @Sam K noted we got a ways to go.  The change I would wish for is more trust and closer community.  Michael noted that one of the things old souls don't get enough of is being seen as they truly are.

[AnnaD]

Interesting. There will always be that tension between people wanting role models, as teachers, and those who don't need teachers because their path and strategies are confident and prosperous already. 

I remember reading somewhere of the requirement that a mature soul society has for reaching consensus, and even when I read it, (I would have been about 20 yrs old or so), I thought wow that is a high expectation and requirement. I remember reading, on the same subject, that old souls do not require such consensus, and that there is a live and let live, and you go your way and I can go my way approach to things. 

 

My question is: would an anarchist community want to be lead on some issues? Surely (as old souls anyway) there is recognition that we all have different, diverse and valuable skill mixes, with varied resources and established supports, which could be shared with a community as a contribution? I would answer that yes, in order to establish a particular community with an identified cause/vision, an old soul and mature soul community would recognise the benefits of using and the contributions of the expertise of others who could lead, could bring the cause ahead, who could add critical sophisticated technical skills which would advance the groups cause. The alternate community anarchy structure is an equality in everyone learning a little bit of each skill, being jacks of all trades, without being too sophisticated or being able to lead a group with one skill over another. However when the skill or the level of advancement is present and available, I would guess one would be a bit of a fool not to use the skill. But that might be a point of conflict, I would hope not, because precluding a community from a more well resourced, supported, and advanced technology is cutting off ones nose to spite ones face, but you do you i guess. I don't doubt that leadership can exist within anarchist communities, but I am sure the same old conflicts with democracy arise and collateral damage occurs anyway. 

 

So with getting cohesion, agreement, consensus in an Anarchist community amongst a mix of mature and old souls might be a big ask. but I guess if the group is mainly on board with the goals and the ways to achieve the goals, the consensus might be stronger. Actively participating in the decision making determines presence or lack of consensus. Maybe the disappointment and disillusionment for achieving consensus might be more charged for mature souls, I don't know. I sure felt upset when the consensus went towards Trump!! 

 

With old souls the realisation that one can live one's own life pretty as one chooses, and one can choose to create one's life, is obvious, and is lived. Becomes more of a lived experience as life goes on. Defining Anarchy is maybe how an old soul actively responds to choices. Choosing how to learn and learning how to choose, leading, by example. Choosing what when how where who and why they are participating, and the causes they go along with...

Edited February 12, 2017 by AnnaD
reasons

[Sam K]

39 minutes ago, AnnaD said:

So with getting cohesion, agreement, consensus in an Anarchist community amongst a mix of mature and old souls might be a big ask. but I guess if the group is mainly on board with the goals and the ways to achieve the goals, the consensus might be stronger. Actively participating in the decision making determines presence or lack of consensus. Maybe the disappointment and disillusionment for achieving consensus might be more charged for mature souls, I don't know. I sure felt upset when the consensus went towards Trump!!

This is one of the reasons why a resource-based, post-scarcity economy is necessary for the kind of system we're talking about to work, in my opinion.  Lack of access to essential resources, the fear generated when one feels that one's safety and security are at stake in a political debate-- these are things that have to be eliminated before we can move into a fully communal, anarchistic system.  If everyone knows that their basic welfare is assured regardless of whether there is consensus on a given course of action, then rational discourse unsullied by anger, fear, or distrust becomes possible.

Edited February 12, 2017 by Sam K

[MichaelS]

Anarchism and a resource and exchange based economy have a great deal in common. Way to go. History shows us that Anarchism has been given a bad name by the Young and Baby Agers. It also shows it can succeed to the extent it's objectives are in line with other popular movements. In the Spanish Civil War in 1936, the Anarchists might have succeeded in their policy of voluntary collectivisation (and their highly successful 150,000 strong Militia of the Revolutionary Army) but found themselves outmanoeuvred and slandered by the Comintern and Stalin (if you listen closely through the pages of history books, you can hear the gears grinding in Stalin's Baby mind) and the shenanigans of Baby/Young France and Britain. Anarchy has, and continues to have, a strong tradition in Spain arising out of the work of Michael Bakinun, one of the founders of Modern Anarchism. It was the Anarchists who pre-empted Franco's coup d'etat. Anarchists had a deep commitment to education and many previously uneducated children were schooled using the methods of Francisco Ferrer, a renowned Anarchist Educator.

 

The role of women was also transformed, especially through their contributions to the (highly successful) Militia. Anarchists opposed the right of any small groups to have control over others and they opposed the State, Government, Army, Police and the Courts, which were seen as the means by which to impose the will of the minority over a majority. Russian Anarchists initially supported the Bolsheviks in spirit, but they were opposed to the Bolsheviks' taking power into their own hands to create a Dictatorship of bureaucratic State Capitalism in Russia. A case of 'hello, meet the new Boss, the same as the old Boss'. Like the Communists they were opposed to the exploitation of workers, a system that they believed will always lead to starvation and war.

 

Then, as now, Syndaclism may prove to be a means by which Anarchism and individuals can be brought together. Workers who did the same jobs would link up with others to create Regional and National Federations. This might be an important economic condition of a resource based economy. Digital, virtual technology has transformed the means by which Syndaclism might be achieved in 2017!  However in 1936, as today, those who had the most to lose continued to resist those who had the most to gain. Anarchism is so much more than a show of chaos and violence. 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2017 by MichaelS

[Seve]

@MichaelS Thank you for your thoughts. I'm aware of this part of Anarchist history but haven't studied it at all. When I posted this thread I wasn't sure how much of a response it would get. 

[Sam K]

Heh, this just recently popped back up in my feed.  Always interesting to see how your opinions have shifted over the years.  I'm fully anarchist now (think I was even back then, just slow to acknowledge it), and while I would still much prefer nonviolent social change wherever possible, I'm much cooler with revolution.  Suppose I have Trump to thank for that particular shift. I still think changes to the social order arise when populations are collectively ready for them, but I've realized that one of the ways that those changes can manifest is through revolution.