> Does not matter if your seats of power are in a global hegemonic empire,
> or merely the 12 seats on your local council, or some other system where
> a "benevolent dictator is supposed to wield ulatimte authority" - by
> "being too smart to get involved in politics", as you correctly point
> out,

Yes, I agree with you that it would be better for all if a different lot
of people got involved in politics, whether at a local or global level,
etc.

The trouble is that it is difficult to convince people to act against
their own immediate interests.

For example, I happen to know an exceptionally smart woman that I think
would be great in politics. But she'd get decimated in an election because
of her lifestyle choices. She has a long-term, polygamous relationship and
open relations with other people.

There is an additional layer of complexity here: what individualist
anarchist types view as "moral", "acceptable", and "normal" is
fundamentally different than the population at large. And unfortunately,
these are the types of things that the population focuses on; largely
because they are unable to comprehend matters of the issues.

> Well, you seem to get it, why have you not created a political party
> "Anarchy FTW" or some such?

I have, actually, at different times in life. The difficulty that I've run
into is two fold.

First, there has been a difficulty in uniting left-and-right oriented
anarchists. That is "solvable" by simply focusing on one perspective and
getting a group behind that. I don't much care, personally, if we're
speaking about anarcho-capitalism, or anarcho-syndicalism, or whatever.
>From my perspective, neither have be implemented at a large scale, and
both seem to have advantages over the current failing system, so I'm happy
to give either a chance. Others are more dogmatically ideological about
it, in my experience.

But the bigger issue has been disruptive individuals. Whether they are
just hard-line ideologues, or agent provocateurs, I won't bother to
speculate. But the problem is that there is always a few individuals who
manage to dominate the conversation, and derail practical things for some
type of "purity." And to argue against them is to get labeled a sell-out,
fascist sympathizer, or other nonsense.

I was acquainted with an 'anarchist' group that ended up voting for George
Bush Jr, the second time around on the "principle" that he is the worst
choice, and that it would hasten the downfall of the State. I've been
acquainted with others that advocate not voting at all.

> How is it that, regardless of political philosophy underlying whatever
> political system currently prevails in the shared common delusion, that
> we can justify NOT being involved?

There are all manner of rational justifications for not running for
office. Not wanting your personal life torn apart, and the people close to
you harassed and hurt is damn good justification.

There are less rational reasons to not vote.. even if you pencil in "no
one" or "putin" or whatever nonsense, and take the time to encourage other
members of the electorate to think differently about their duty while on
line.

>
>> You know, the main problem with anarchism is that there are no doctors
>> and engineers to speak of.
>
> Speak for yourself.
>
>
> And I encourage you, with a warm heart, to advise yourself to caution
> yourself in the words you use, in the genericisms you proudly flaunt as
> they they're God's given truth to the current reality.

I believe if you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I was careful to
use "to speak of" and "mostly" as needed. Perhaps I could have couched it
more.

> Guaranteed we could find at least a handful of "doctors and lawyers",
> who subscribe to at least some aspects of political anarchy!

Yes, of course. But a handful is not nearly enough, and I find that
pragmatic professional types who aren't political ideologues don't want to
waste time with a group composed of such people, which as I say, in my
experience tend to be the type that crowd under the banner of anarchy.


>
> I do wish there were an easier silver bullet where I could say to you
> "yeah, good on ya mate! go live your own life and avoid all politics
> it's all doomed anyway, so I pat your back for giving up mate!"

Well, I will say that I've all but given up on "anarchy." Or, rather, I've
come around, perhaps, more to Thoreau's view: we're not ready for it.

Today, I tend to put more focus on practical things, and rather avoid the
ideology. What can be done to keep the internet as free as possible? What
can be done to combat state surveillance? What can be done to see firearms
rights preserved as best as possible? If I have to deal with National
party folks, or Liberal party, or Greens, or whoever, thats fine.

> ... generally, learn to be a great human, a fantastic team player, a
> subtle and ego free behind the scenes influencer (if possible, I know
> from extended personal experience that ego is a shit of a thing to try
> to purge).

Indeed, sir. If people made this their life's work, I dare say most
problems in the world would have already long faded to history textbooks.

And yes, I agree. One's own ego is always the most difficult beast to slay.

>
> Let's take turns wearing The Robe.
>
> Now all we need is a suitably religious sounding yet subversive prayer
> chant to enchance the masses :)

Shouldn't be too hard. Most Zen is fairly subversive in its own right. In
the 9th century, Zen master Ummon Zenji was asked "What's the Buddha?". He
paused, and thought for a moment and replied "A dried shit-stick."

There are many levels of meaning to this that I've often found it useful
to ponder.

>> But the monks know its all nonsense.. its just for show. It's an act, a
>> play they perform.
>>
>> I've often thought that a successful anarchist movement would need to
>> incorporate something like that.. as social camouflage.
>
> You need to institute that as a cardinal rule I'd say.
>
> :D
>

Indeed. Playing the game well, while remembering its a game, is the only
real key to life, I'd say. Unfortunately, the ideological tend to get
wrapped up in changing the game that gets played; not realizing it doesn't
really make much difference whether we're playing Monopoly, or Chutes and
Ladders so long as everyone is having a good time.

Reply via email to