About 75,000 voters in northwest England are about to make a significant decision. They will vote in a contest that could choose the U.K.’s next prime minister or add more chaos to British politics.
The oligarchy is indeed the source of problems. But a thing I recognise with a lot of those who vote for fascist parties, is that they misalign the “elite” on which they blame things, with immigrants and queer people. So we have to make use of that frame of an elite, to turn it toward that of the oligarchs.
And another issue, is the media control. A lot of people unknowingly are influenced by algorithms from tech billionnaires - and those are directed towards ever furthering extreme views, because that gives clicks. So we as a collective have to stop clicking on anything that fuels those polarising views. Those with radicalised parents could try - if they can keep themselves safe that is - to use DNS blocking of fascist and oligarch-owned content and search engines. It’s all about what they get exposed to. At the same time, we must spread the left message, share it, and give absolutely no platform to fascist views. Kick 'em out.
I disagree with needing a strong leader. We can have an elected, directoy recallable face for the press and media, but as Occupy Wall Street managed to seize the streets for a while, just as the Rojava and Zapatistas managed to liberate themselves, just as can we liberate ourselves. We do however, need to be armed and trained (while at the same time, be civil in public), because otherwise the fascists will kill us. Speak softly and carry a big stick.
Multiple approaches exist, but I have no faith in centralisation of power. That only enables further authoritarianism. Just look at Bush and his deep-state-behaviouristic “PATRIOT” surveillance Act. At the time, there was widespread criticism, but also a feeling of “if it protects democracy”. It however, undermined democracy.
Another example is Reagan, the proto-oligarch, who had employed “COINTELPRO”, a program to sow terror, to repress left-wing activists, trade unions, labourers, the free and anti-oligarch press, and so on.
Or for another parallel, look at the Bolsheviks and their suppression of the free soviets (worker’s councils) during the Kronstadt insurrection. They refused to include socialists and anarchists within councils.
The Ukrainian anarchist Makhnovishna managed to capture large territories, and so did the Rojava. The Rojava do have a “police/military” (Asayish), but those who serve must be approved by the people’s councils and are overseen by them. All citizens are trained for security, so that eventually the Asayish can be disbanded. That is very different from police/militaries in most states, where they are not only unelected (being appointed by lawmakers instead, who are not even directly recallable), but also have more power than others due to being more heavily armed, well-prepared, and so on. They are rife for abuse.
I prefer to say: let us take the guerilla warfare lessons from the Zapatistas and the Vietnamese: being able to withstand imperialist powers such as the French, American, and Chinese.
So, no, l believe rather that all who wish for a classless, moneyless, and stateless society, should create it without the foundations for autocracy. I do not believe in a state to disband a state. If we must use strength, then must this strength not be available to all?
The oligarchy is indeed the source of problems. But a thing I recognise with a lot of those who vote for fascist parties, is that they misalign the “elite” on which they blame things, with immigrants and queer people. So we have to make use of that frame of an elite, to turn it toward that of the oligarchs.
And another issue, is the media control. A lot of people unknowingly are influenced by algorithms from tech billionnaires - and those are directed towards ever furthering extreme views, because that gives clicks. So we as a collective have to stop clicking on anything that fuels those polarising views. Those with radicalised parents could try - if they can keep themselves safe that is - to use DNS blocking of fascist and oligarch-owned content and search engines. It’s all about what they get exposed to. At the same time, we must spread the left message, share it, and give absolutely no platform to fascist views. Kick 'em out.
I disagree with needing a strong leader. We can have an elected, directoy recallable face for the press and media, but as Occupy Wall Street managed to seize the streets for a while, just as the Rojava and Zapatistas managed to liberate themselves, just as can we liberate ourselves. We do however, need to be armed and trained (while at the same time, be civil in public), because otherwise the fascists will kill us. Speak softly and carry a big stick.
Either we give the people a strong leader, or the right does.
How do you not see that?
As if we don’t need a strong leader, things are shit, and nothing but a strong leader could change it.
Multiple approaches exist, but I have no faith in centralisation of power. That only enables further authoritarianism. Just look at Bush and his deep-state-behaviouristic “PATRIOT” surveillance Act. At the time, there was widespread criticism, but also a feeling of “if it protects democracy”. It however, undermined democracy.
Another example is Reagan, the proto-oligarch, who had employed “COINTELPRO”, a program to sow terror, to repress left-wing activists, trade unions, labourers, the free and anti-oligarch press, and so on.
Or for another parallel, look at the Bolsheviks and their suppression of the free soviets (worker’s councils) during the Kronstadt insurrection. They refused to include socialists and anarchists within councils.
The Ukrainian anarchist Makhnovishna managed to capture large territories, and so did the Rojava. The Rojava do have a “police/military” (Asayish), but those who serve must be approved by the people’s councils and are overseen by them. All citizens are trained for security, so that eventually the Asayish can be disbanded. That is very different from police/militaries in most states, where they are not only unelected (being appointed by lawmakers instead, who are not even directly recallable), but also have more power than others due to being more heavily armed, well-prepared, and so on. They are rife for abuse.
I prefer to say: let us take the guerilla warfare lessons from the Zapatistas and the Vietnamese: being able to withstand imperialist powers such as the French, American, and Chinese.
So, no, l believe rather that all who wish for a classless, moneyless, and stateless society, should create it without the foundations for autocracy. I do not believe in a state to disband a state. If we must use strength, then must this strength not be available to all?
Sheep please. Gtfo. Seriosuly, get the fuck out.