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.
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?
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.