Democ Rpcl views Part 2

I critique both; campaign organizational patterns' tendencies toward managerialism, reductionism, professionalism, substitutionism and ideology, as well as insurrectionary milieus organisational structurelessness, purity testing and isolationism.

I want to abolish the Republican party and GOP so we can finally free up the Democratic Party to become truly Left Wing and to turn against the establishment

I show solidarity with the vast majority of Indpeendent voters who want neither Joe Biden or Donald Trump to win the 2024 Presidential election. Like RFK Jr said fuck the lesser of two evils trash. Only political partisans (I.e the loud minority) disagree with this

Joe Biden and Donald Trump both are bad for democracy and our world in their own way. 

We need a national revolution against the existing liberal-parliamentarian order. 

I support Revolutionary Progressive Nationalism

I don’t care for Liberal Conservative populism or J Bidenist -Center for American Progress populism and I find them divisive 

BUT: To Anti Joe Biden Republicans, I am not Anti Joe Biden, but I know you are. So I am desperate to get you to be more open to at least hearing Joe Biden out and giving him a chance to win your vote. 

So I will use your religion to make this point and speak to you. I believe you should realize that God can change anyone, he changed Saul, one of the biggest and most evil Christphobic person ever into a Christian by having Paul accept Jesus. Paul ended up writing most of the New Testament and becoming one of the earliest Christian leaders (and apologists). So maybe God can change Joe Biden to be what you want him to be like God did for Saul

Joe Biden had a strong SOTU address in March 2024 even if Fox News downplays it. Joe Biden proved that he still has at least some of the things we all liked about him years ago still intact. Yes there are some concerns we all have with this address and post address fallout but his SOTU address in March 2024 should raise his approval ratings a few points and maybe give Anti Biden Independents some positives as to why they should 'vote' for Joe Biden

I am a Civic Nationalism adherent

I would only support this type of Civic Nationalism in the extremely rare hypothetical cases 

I support what some people would call ‘Bourgeois’ Civic Nationalism based on the Scottish model. 

I don’t like National Conservatism. It is extreme and statist

I am against National Chauvinism 

I support former President Theodore Roosevelt’s New Nationalism

I am glad that I am a Libertarian Socialist because Libertarian Socialism is the proper and natural extension of Classical Liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society.

This classical liberalism fills the previous big hole of classical liberalism with goodness

Marxism is good because it is an extension of Liberalism and is a better extension of Liberalism than Liberalism 2.0. But Marxism should not be mixed with Liberalism 2.0 

I agree with what Vaush said here  “When (Karl) Marx and following theorists wrote on capitalism they weren't writing 'capitalism and liberalism are worst things to ever happen to humanity, they are the greatest oppression of workers'. No. Marxism is supposed to be an extension of liberalism not a rejection of it, a true promotion of unity, fraternity, and freedom, and liberty, etc. That's what Marxism and that's what leftism is about, it's about bringing the messaging of the liberal movement forward, to make it better, to make it get stronger, to make it true to its principles.”

So elements of this can be found throughout my blog, including on Participatory Democracy-Direct Democracy, Defensive Democracy, Agnostic Radical Democracy, Liberal Democracy, Inclusive Democracy, Progressive Utilization theory, 4pt, Autonomous Radical Democracy (as a DotP), Austromarxism, and any other view which fuses together Marxism and Liberalism 1.0 together

This also explains why I am a Liberal Socialist, Libertarian Socialist, Market-oriented left libertarian, Left Wing Free market anarchist-anarchistic socialist/Mutualist

I support Family (before we abolish and then reimagine it), nation (not blindly see Nation and migration section), honor, duty

I am Anti Statist which can be seen throughout this blog. I am generally against centralized state power. At absolute minimum, I am against government bureaucracy especially inefficient government bureaucracy 

I am opposed to the state - as an enforcer of institutions, submission, and force. 

I have major issues with demand making to people in power, so instead I choose the practice of direct action and attack. 

I am very wary of the idea that we can realize our desire for self determination by making piece-meal demands which, at best, only offer a temporary amelioration of the harmfulness of the social order of capital. 

I recognize the necessity to attack this society in its totality in order to achieve a practical and theoretical awareness in each partial struggle of the totality which must be abolished. 

Thus, furthermore, the capacity to see what is potentially revolutionary, what has moved beyond the logic of demands and of piece meal changes in partial social struggles, since, basically , every radical, insurrectionary rupture was sparked by a struggle that started as an attempt to gain partial demands, but that in practice moved from demanding what was desired to seizing it etc

“Whoever lays his /her hand on me to govern me is a usurper and tyrant, and I declare him/her my enemy.” Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

To quote Max Stirner, "agitation might rather be declared against establishment itself, the State, not a particular State, not any such thing as the mere condition of the State at the time; it is not another State (e.g. a "people's State") that men aim at, but their union, uniting, this ever-fluid uniting of everything standing. — A State exists even without my co-operation: I am born in it, brought up in it, under obligations to it, and must "do it homage." [huldigen] It takes me up into its "favor," [Huld] and I live by its "grace."

I support protecting civil liberties. The state is a foe to our civil liberties and the best way to safeguard our civil liberties is to protect each other’s control over our bodies and justly acquired possessions 

I support grass-roots empowerment and e-democracy, and direct democracy. The more hands on Americans are with politics, the more this idea from Mark Twain can be realized:  

“Moral evolution can happen many times apart of the government/state and relations between people can emerge with freedom from the government/state. Most relationships in life should not be characterized as conflict as the left and right might have it. It's good to have mutual and humane respect for others as individuals.   It's also good to do positive and unselfish things without having to grapple with the political ramifications of doing those positive things.  “

It's a known concept that society moves generally left and more accepting over time as people realize other groups are also... Just people.

I support devolution of powers. Something between states’ rights (including the California independence movement) and something that fuses together California melt culturalism, open localism and 

I believe the state inherently violates personal autonomy and that is wrong and we need to stop that abuse

I feel liberty and equality can’t be implemented within the state, since it interrogates all forms of domination and hierarchy. See here for more. The full state as institution is the source of evil throughout  the entirety of history.

So hence my views throughout this blog. We want more social freedoms. 

“The limits of political emancipation appear at once in the fact that the state can liberate itself from constraint without man himself being really liberated; that a state may be a free state without man himself being a free man.” Karl Marx, (1843)

Humans lived in societies that did not have formal hierarchies long before the establishment of formal states, realms, or empires. So we should get back to that way of life

Until the state is abolished, I conditionally am ok with the state and similar institutions nudging people to make decisions that I deem defensible that serve their own long-term interests

At minimum there should be a social contract of consent between us citizens and the State which includes the non-aggression principle which i support. This can maybe include a non woke, non liberal 2.0 metaphysical social contract that is rooted in the theories of Hobbes, Locke, and/or Rousseau

I agree with BHL's critique of Democratic Authority here and BHL's arguments against having a state. In short the article correctly says that good people who never act wrongly would not need a state. This is because that article rightfully says that if everyone were willing to contribute voluntarily to public goods, no one ever wanted to violate anyone else’s rights, no one ever wanted to do anything unjust, etc., why would we need a state?

We should advance detailed arguments for workplace democracy rooted in such natural law principles as subsidiarity, which we defend as morally desirable and as a probable outcome of the elimination of injustice rather than as something that is mandated by the state.

Natural law approaches to land reform and factory occupation by workers. Rejecting natural law that grounds to intellectual property protections, while building on property rights more general and developing a general natural law account of boycotts.

As a Libertarian socialist I support decentralized structures that are based on direct democracy and federal or confederal associations like citizens' assemblies, libertarian municipalism, trade unions and workers' councils. This can be seen throughout my blog

I support decentralization—subsidiarity, secession (in ways that mesh with my blogs), nullification, and localism—for  political units completely down to the level of the individual as a moral end and as a method of expanding choice and competition in a state for all individuals. In some ways the State is not the same thing as governance

I am an Individualist and I support Individual sovereignty.  

I am against anti totalitarian humanism. We are all human

I support self control. I am against Totalitarianism

I balance between the Individual and the state  

I support Individual liberty and unifies the social, individualist, and market schools of anarchist thought

I am against federal tyranny

Karl Marx made a valuable point with his argument that the market economy, in a unique way combines political and personal freedom with social unfreedom: personal freedom (like freely selling oneself on the market) is the very form of my unfreedom

I reject the Marxist full derision of 'formal freedom', since it is necessary for critique. When we are formally free, only then can we become aware just how limited this freedom actually is. This type of thought plays into my views on Afro Pessimism, anti statism, Libertarianism, Marxism and related views

I support the complicated heterodoxy and somewhat naive open spirit of US politics

Individuals are haunted by their own ideas, this idea has become real and now forces people to follow it. People decided what a good citizen was and made up the consequences for breaking this "rule" and now we are trapped due to us embracing  our own ideas . There are no sacred ideas, objective facts or real meanings (apart from higher powers)  But still, I am a tolerant person who fights injustices 

I don’t believe that the Constitution is infallible and I think it has a few issues. I support bringing back the Articles of the Confederation only if it won’t be abused by right wingers

Even though I am an anti statist,  I do not fetishize states rights (I don’t even really care that much about states rights tbh) and I am not a constitutionalist .I do not support the Tenth Amendment . 

I believe in some ways the constitution has failed us .But at the same time our laws should be grounded in the Constitution . 

Insurrectionary anarchism is a good way to gain self empowerment where one can feel joyful of themselves and go beyond morality . It is truly revolutionary, relies on informal organization and small affinity group type of organizations. This creates targeted methods, permanent class conflict and a refusal to negotiate or compromise with class enemies all to create a better world

Two types tangiblely better worlds we can create using such truly revolutionary and self powering methods ,are a Bioregional /Libertarian Municipal society or the type of pro environmental society I outline here

Revolution and insurrection are not synonymous. The former is radical change of conditions, of  prevailing status or condition , the state or society, and is thus a political or social act.

The latter has a transformation of conditions which is an inevitable result, but doesn’t start from that, but it starts the discontent of human beings with themselves; it’s not an armed uprising, but of a rising up of people, without the regard for the arrangements that spring from it. 

The revolution is aimed at new arrangements, while the insurrection leads us to no longer let ourselves be arranged. It instead seeks to arrange ourselves, and set no radiant hopes on any institutions. Permanent revolutions are good because they change things in a manner where revoltions don’t take people by surprise since they are ongoing. 

It is not a fight versus the establishment, since, if this prospers, the establishment would collapse of itself. 

It is only a working of a person’s way out of the establishment. If they leave the establishment, it is dead and falls into decay. Since now their aim would not be the overthrow of the established order but their rising up above it, their intention and action would not be a political or social intention and action, but, since they are directed really toward themselves and their ownness, an egoistic intention and action

The revolution demands that a person makes arrangements; the insurrection demands that a person stand or raise themselves up

Jesus was not a revolutionary, but he was instead an insurrectionist, a rebel. To quote Max Stirner,

“The time [in which Jesus lived] was politically so agitated that, as is said in the gospels, people thought they could not accuse the founder of Christianity more successfully than if they arraigned him for 'political intrigue', and yet the same gospels report that he was precisely the one who took the least part in these political doings. But why was he not a revolutionary, not a demagogue, as the Jews would gladly have seen him? [...] Because he expected no salvation from a change of conditions, and this whole business was indifferent to him. He was not a revolutionary, like Caesar, but an insurgent: not a state-overturner, but one who straightened himself up. [...] [Jesus] was not carrying on any liberal or political fight against the established authorities, but wanted to walk his own way, untroubled about, and undisturbed by, these authorities. [...] But, even though not a ringleader of popular mutiny, not a demagogue or revolutionary, he (and every one of the ancient Christians) was so much the more an insurgent who lifted himself above everything that seemed so sublime to the government and its opponents, and absolved himself from everything that they remained bound to [...]; precisely because he put from him the upsetting of the established, he was its deadly enemy and real annihilator[.]"     

Good quote by Hannah Ardent "Generally speaking, violence always rises out of impotence. It is the hope of those who have no power to find a substitute for it and this hope, I think, is in vain. Violence can destroy power, but it can never replace it."

I support individual reforms to better protect liberty

I am Anti Establishment. While it is fun to say “Heaven is not taken by consensus: it is taken by storm”, (I i.e that force alone makes something just [within reason and meshing with UN human rights laws when applicable]) we should always use the way that Podemos “takes heaven” instead of through storm

Freedom exists for those with the force to take it - the moment that your loyalty is to yourself rather than any spooks, you begin resistance. "The masses" won't do this at all

Human rights/God-given rights/natural rights are an intellectually vacuous concept, and borderline religious in presentation in spite of rights being championed by the in theory but not in practice secular liberal tradition. 

What we refer to as 'rights' are just highly valued and legally privileged liberties doled out by the state. Anything could become a right, or lose its status as a right, if the collective nation or an adequate authoritarian government so desires it. It's not that I believe that these 'rights' shouldn't be valued, its just that I am opposed to the concept that such rights exist outside of the state and civilization.

Human rights can be seen as per Karl Marx in a negative light “the rights of egoistic man, of man as a member of bourgeois society, that is to say an individual separated from his community and solely concerned with his self-interest”

These alleged universal rights of the abstract individual would in reality promote the interests of one particular social type; the possessive individual of capitalism. 

Not only due to the context in which these rights emerged, but also in their very form, these rights would be linked to bourgeois ideology – the ideology which the Communist Manifesto described as having drowned all emotion “in the icy water of egotistical calculation” and having ripped apart all feudal ties, leaving behind “no other nexus between people than naked self-interest”

In some ways, human rights could be seen assumed to translate the ethos of “social atomism” – an ethos which is which is blind to the class divisions that are its very social conditions for existence. 

However this article shows that Marxism finds a way to rightfully support human rights while acknowledging the early Karl Marx way of thinking on these matters

I support equality but being OCD about having everyone and their dog be 110 percent equalequitable rubs me the wrong way

“Equality isn't possible because it's not built into nature. Every form of equality we enforce is man-made, therefore every attempt is a failure to force nature to be unnatural. Our 'theories' are damaging us and we should return to celebrated individualism.”

“ Equality doesn't exist in nature and therefore can be established only by force. He who wants geographic equality has to dynamite mountains and fill up the valleys.” See here for more

Authority may (and may not) make all people equally rich in purse; it certainly will make them equally poor in all that makes life best worth living". Keep in mind I incorporate egalitarianism into my views but Tucker’s view above does factor into my views

On ethical issues, my views tend to be left or lean left, with socialist roots even the radical component. I respect politicians freedom of conscience

However to quote Vladimir Lenin “ Democracy is a form of the state, it represents, on the one hand, the organized, systematic use of force against persons; but, on the other hand, it signifies the formal recognition of equality of citizens, the equal right of all to determine the structure of, and to administer, the state.”. and expand or go beyond that line of thinking

I feel that Liberty (and its realization) is collective as it should be shared instead of being diminished and thus being  'only imaginable in the contest of the liberty of all', It should be accompanied also by social and economic equality. 

We need to revive the authentic liberalism from the 19th century with younger and more modern traits and liberal cultural values that make more sense in these contemporary times

I support the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in our society in order to increase the distribution of skills, capacities and productive endowments . I support my combined economic systems (which naturally acheive income equality) as the means to achieve this.

I am against Neoliberalism (including Capitalism) as I feel that Neoliberalism has inflamed or caused most of the problems the US is facing today and has negative effects on many people throughout the US. 

Neoliberal capitalism has completely wrecked all of our social institutes leaving us isolated socially anxious wrecks. Neoliberal had also caused other issues, see here, here , here, here and here for more

The social permissiveness of the Liberal 2.0 fused with the free-market creed of the Right has created the soulless ethic known as neoliberalism. It’s why I decry unregulated capitalism and porn at the same time . 

How is it liberating for people to climb the job ladder in order to go work for 90 hours a week in a cubicle at Goldman Sachs? 

A meritocratic, neoliberal world is in some ways an aberration that for all intents and purposes only benefits educated Western elites.

It’s also why I am more drawn to Catholic social teaching, than to Protestant work-ethic individualism

Moreover we have to abolish the Capitalist value system of traditional conservatism to create a less divisive world where we are in control, free of stratified social classes, wedge issues and reactionaries on both sides . We need to radically change the role of the state in countries where the Washington Consensus once was prevalent including in the US.  

Capitalism itself is state interference. I demand structural economic changes while I also recognize that oppression on the basis of identity is intertwined with capitalist power structures. I realize that rainbow capitalism can never make good on its promises of liberation hence why I refuse to let us settle for rainbow Capitalism.

So I am against National Capitalism

Capitalism a lot of the time destroys or hampers countries and the structures within them. We must subvert consumerism, materialism and commercialism

Capitalism has inflamed or caused most of the problems the US .  Capitalists push the middle class to be Neoliberal which lets them be scooped up by Liberal 2.0ers.  

I wouldn’t mind a broadened bipartisan coalition to defeat Capitalism. But I am just throwing ideas against the wall hoping one will stick to defeat Capitalism. We should radically break with the capitalist policies of all the main parties.I don’t see the appeal of Capitalism

Objectivism is not sensible. Economic intervention in order to ensure fair competition. But I oppose all government interference in economic affairs that does not align with the Left Libertarian ideology . The latter type of big gov is groundless, pernicious dichotomy

I support Left Wing socioeconomic ideologies (especially Libertarian Socialism) because with,  in particular Libertarian Socialism there is no need to tax or to have welfare or for government regulation in the economy. Libertarian Socialism for example, emphasizes decentralization 

In Left Wing socioeconomic societies (especially Libertarian Socialism societies) there will be universal paid maternity leave (aided by workers owning the means of production, co-ops and remote work), free education, free healthcare and free housing which function more as tech breaks and enhancements that would be needed to make the socialistic human workforce reproduce itself and perform at its zenith. It would not be part of a social contract between the state and citizens.

This is because Left Wing socioeconomic ideologies (especially Libertarian Socialism) radically fixes the bigger picture, which includes defeating Capitalism, creating economic egalitarianism (income equality). 

However, PSUEDO Left Wing economic systems such as Social Liberal Capitalism, quasi-utopian socialism i.e what Republicans in the US falsely call “Socialism” (Liberal mixed economy)/Statism-Left Statism (which Millennials and Gen Zers also falsely think is Socialism), State Socialism with Liberal 2.0 characteristics, 21st century Social fascism, what the Right wingers in the US falsely call "Communism"(i.e Late Stage Capitalism), Humanistic-Inclusive Capitalism , *Social Democracy,  real Neo marxism, Neoliberalism and most forms of Keynesian economics (except like this). 

*certain variants of Social Democracy and Social Democracy without adjectives  (non Third Way SocDem/non Left SocDem/non Austromarxist SocDem/non Social Libertarianism SocBert/non Liberal Socialism SocDem/non working class advocacy SocDem without adjectives and or any SocDem without adjectives that are left of (or the same as) Social Liberal Capitalism ,to the left of Third Way SocDem but to the right of Left SocDem/Austromarxist SocDem/Social Libertarianism SocBert/Liberal Socialism SocDem)

And most forms of Keynesian economics (except like this),  are bandaids and they mix the worst parts of Left wing economics and Right wing economics together.    

They create a roadblock that prevents Republicans and Moderates in North America from embracing Socialism, Mutualism and Communism (and even Third Way, Left and Austromarxist Social Democracy)

To sum it up: Left Wing socioeconomic ideologies (especially Libertarian Socialism) are operations that fix economic problems while the above PSUEDO Left Wing economic systems are merely bandaids that only cover up instead of fixes economic problems

I would rather the US implement an economy that fuses Democratic Capitalism with Paternalistic Conservatism, as outlined here than for the US to retain/ implement any of these economic systems : Social Liberal Capitalism, quasi-utopian socialism i.e what Republicans in the US falsely call “Socialism” (Liberal mixed economy)/Statism-Left Statism (which Millennials and Gen Zers also falsely think is Socialism), State Socialism with Liberal 2.0 characteristics, 21st century Social fascism , what the Right wingers in the US falsely call "Communism"(i.e Late Stage Capitalism), Humanistic-Inclusive Capitalism ,  'Succdem' ,Neoliberalism, real Neo marxism and most forms of Keynesian economics (except like this)

If the US can’t become Left Wing on the economy or implement Super Collective Capitalism (SupColCap) or the Nordic Model then the US might as well move slightly right on the economy and implement an economy that fuses Democratic Capitalism with Paternalistic Conservatism, as outlined here

While Left Wing socioeconomic ideologies (especially Libertarian Socialism) is a operation and the best of all worlds.

If we must stay in our static Capitalistic economy and cannot transition to socialism, we should aim for sovereign processes that limits the power of finance, transform production, ensure a wide wealth mutualistic predistribution and push for a more democratic configuration of our institutions.  

I would thus bite the bullet and settle either for Super Collective Capitalism (SupColCap) or the Nordic Model as the easiest and closet approximation to this , which I outline here

I support political management with higher levels of transparency, participation, closeness (to the citizens), along with non SJW digital activism (like Xenofeminism), citizen campaigns, public accounts done periodically etc

In addition, its management was characterized by raising the levels of transparency, participation, closeness to citizens and digital activism, reporting in different parts of the District with different platforms the details of his parliamentary work, through citizen campaigns, periodic public accounts

Congress should adopt a series of measurements and goals that can be modified and reexamined over time. Representatives should select from these measures based on what they believe their constituents would care about then suggest how the laws they are passing will improve them.

I feel these measurements such as, but not limited to should be used to measure our GDP: Poverty rates, Life expectancy, Rates of Business formation, Clean Water, Crime Rates, Overdose deaths, Government Efficiency, Mental Health, Income Growth & Average Incomes, Affordability, Environmental Sustainability, Recidivism, Labor-force participation Rate, Military Readiness, Marriage Rates, Quality of Infrastructure, Rehabilitation Rates, Civic Engagement, Education Rates

In order to build a revolution to overcome our society’s Capitalism , we need to build a working class  . But we can only build this revolutionary party by engaging in all relevant issues affecting the working class, which I lay out throughout my blog spheres

In order to build a revolution to overcome our society’s Capitalism , we need to build a working class  . But we can only build this revolutionary party by engaging in all relevant issues affecting the working class, which I lay out in these sections of my blog 

This country’s future is bleak. 

Our country’s future is bleak because we are living under wage slavery where people never can afford to own a house, car, can never pay off their student debt, never can have enough income to support or even start a family. 

Our country’s future is bleak because our country is suffering due to families being split apart, marriages being ripped apart, corruption, preteens putting embarrassing things on their phones which hurt them later on. Our country’s future is bleak because of sick technology addiction. I need to articulate myself better about the above problems , by maybe focusing on top 3 or 5 major problems but…

We have to do something now to fix those problems or at least the major problems among them. 

Our society is falling apart with irreversible damage with stuff which took so long to build up unraveling before our eyes. Our modern society is unfortunately dirtier, messier, less coordinated, less friendly, and less loving and than it used to be we need to change this to become as friendly, loving, coordinates as we used to be while being cleaning up the dirt and mess

I feel that Socialism is better than Nationalism without adjectives as Socialism is the heart of a post National world and creates better solidarity than Nationalism without adjectives and all forms of Right wing Nationalisms. However, every socialist movement had essential components of nationalism. This post by me expands on this 

One critique I have of Nationalisms is the whole National Memory make up of Nationalism. Nations change and many forms of Nationalism that seek to shove our history down our throat (i.e Garden of Heroes nonsense, Memorial Day or Patriots Day etc), makes me anathemic to a lot to most forms of Nationalism. Fascists and deep Right wingers ruined Nationalism

However, I believe that the nation is defined as the totality of persons bound together through a common destiny into a community of character. To me, national identity is not necessarily obstructive toward class consciousness, existing as a useful praxis for the self determination of the worker. 

The issues with National identity (within a capitalist society) was not national identify itself but really the tendency of the lower classes to cling to traditions which tether them to the institutions of the old bureaucratic and capitalistic systems in addition to nationality being conceived of exclusive racial/ethnic and territorial means .

I feel that the notions of territorial principle can be substituted in situations where minority populations risked being subjugated by majorities. 

We can use Karl Renner's notion of the "personal principle" as a way of gathering the geographically divided people of the same nation. The personal principle can be used to organize nations not in territorial bodies but in a simple association of persons. (I already support national personal autonomy used in all types of societies)

This would radically disjoin a nation from its territory thus creating a non territorial associated nation. It is important to doing way with sub national territorial identities as undemocratic and allowing for the treatment of non majority populations within each nation that Karl Renner wrote about here. 

Basically, the nation should be conceived as an evolutionary process via open, plural and political construction

I support the importance of the battle for cultural hegemony in times of crisis where an electoral project can articulate and draw together various democratic demands and create a political subject that can carry this program through. This can be done via populism

I don't think it's productive for me to identify myself as one side in an internal Anarchist split like people who identify with post-left anarchy do, as I don't think any one group is holding us back any more than other groups. I simply have scorn for anyone who is being malicious and I try to have patience for anyone wanting to learn how to build a more compassionate world.

This is the type of left Anarchism I subscribe to: "Anarchism is a political theory that is skeptical of the justification of authority and power. Anarchism is usually grounded in moral claims about the importance of individual liberty, often conceived as freedom from domination. Anarchists also offer a positive theory of human flourishing, based upon an ideal of equality, community, and non-coercive consensus building."- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anarchism/

I want Anarchists to cultivate harmony between certain anarchist ideologies and to unite against the state

Anarchists have rightfully overthrown elite ruling classes, oppressive empires and states and should unite under than precept. Anarchy should be restored to the way it was in the late 19th century and early 20th century for me to embrace other forms of it besides the few I embrace now

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

Now, this doesn't cause me to draw the conclusion that Anarchism’s goals are pointless, however. It might have led Michels to conclude "if power consolidates, might as well just be fascist," I don't have a clue.

As for me, it only leads to the understanding that it's basically a forever war. That is not to mean that one still shouldn't attempt to "abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal."

Practically wise? This means if we can't abolish hierarchies, we can, at least, attenuate them. This includes adding strong counterbalances.

Something along the lines of Democratic Socialism, or, at least, social democracy that I write about throughout this blog

Philosophically, yet, anarchism is likely the most internally consistent political theory. It doesn't pick and choose which hierarchies are "acceptable." None of them are acceptable.

In reply to this Bruce Gilley article here, should the societies who created the modern world should not apologize for creating the modern world? See the debate here (This article makes some good points on cultures)

Our great culture we have today originated in Greece, Persia, Egypt and with the Cherokee peoples (to name a few). Free Democracy was born out of that and spread to almost the whole world. 

I do not want the US to lose its national identity in a way where the US culture is unrecognizable to what it traditionally is. Otherwise why have a country at all? We should share our common historical solidarity. Our nations are a reflection of our unique spirit and ideas. 

To keep our community of people in the US strong, united and in solidarity with each other, the US needs to promote love of community, family (until we abolish family as the norm then decentralized free association and specific collectives), and faith .We need to end usury, end debt slavery and end human trafficking. We need to fix the free trade problems by altering or ending free trade

I support people the West having a multinational mission of bringing in its light the welfare of less fortunate peoples that, for whatever reason, have miraculously been left by the history without a multinational mission which results in having a high sense of patriotic and cultural responsibility for marginalized peoples

I can more than empathize with this quote and even to learn to agree with it  “There is no freedom in the state of our nation today. That is unless you are a cisgendered, heterosexual, white male. Truth hurts”  Marginalized persons should not stop fighting until they have everything white cishet males have

“The limits of political emancipation appear at once in the fact that the state can liberate itself from constraint without man himself being really liberated; that a state may be a free state without man himself being a free man.” Karl Marx, (1843). 

It is good to have an inclusive society in which each person is part of the entire fabric of our society and has access to social, political, labor and gender rights in order to create an environment where cultural and social diversity is key to social development as opposed to using bourgeois aristocratic saviorism, political opportunism, having to rely on Liberal leftist reactionarism (like SJW and cancel culture) and cold bureaucracy to do so. 

The fight against injustice and prejudice must move toward a more inclusive, dynamic and committed form of participation with the plural and complex realities in our current era

So we must focus on implementing comprehensive policies which don’t focus on immigrants or BIPOC persons but instead focuses on the origin and consequences of the exact problem as a whole

Immigrants and BIPOC people, active subjects with rights, not victims and through direct democracy and having a foot in the street so to speak, the state must work to guarantee that. It is important that they get the recognition of their agency, capacity and their political subjectivity. 

It is important that diversity in political participation, decision making, public spaces and via representation, doesn’t occur exclusively in just debates and in the decision making spaces concerning only racial-ethnic oppression and the immigrant condition, but rather, they must be present in all debates on the political and social future of this country. So they can be the change they see

So public policies should be tilted toward constitutional guarantees of equalization of rights among all people and in the public square we must make sure our country fulfills this role and establishes mechanisms that allow the enforceability of rights.

We must use greater force to get our politicians to commit to Modern Egalitarian theory principals, and anti income/class inequality and anti injustice perspectives

We tend to defend culture as that which breaks the closure of the description of reality imposed from power/powers. 

For this rupture to happen, access to culture must be guaranteed for people in its greatest possible diversity, making it easier for all artistic discourses to find their audience. Let us avoid certain maxims: no, culture per se does not make us free. 

What gives us critical thinking tools, what allows emancipation processes, is the possibility of access to the different cultural manifestations and discourses. 

If we only stick to a deliberately reduced canon, culture will be serving to prop up a certain and privileged perspective, leaving dissenting views and voices silenced (or potentially silenced). 

The task we have as a political organization is to open the canon and at the same time favor the prescription of those compositions (in all areas) that for reasons of gender, class, ethnicity, language, sexual orientation or identity, can be left out being very valuable productions and works for the whole of our collective imagination.

In this task it is also necessary to emphasize that without citizenship there is no culture. This principle has been repeatedly ignored in the cultural policies that have been developed on the right and on the left since the transition to the present day. 

Large empty containers of content and interaction with society, and a process of unbridled privatization of the most popular and interesting initiatives are the mud that explains this sludge. 

We know that it is in neighborhood spaces, neighborhoods and towns, where grassroots cultural projects are proposed that find a greater citizen response and where the most interesting and innovative meetings and artistic manifestations take place. 

Basically we want and need these models for our great and consecrated structures. A new culture for the great museums of the State, that not only keep history in a showcase, but also allow citizens to build the museum every day, that permeates its time and the people of that time.

The labor movements that came out of the 19th century had an international nature in that they were in dialogue and were supportive of each other, but all of the political wins of the labor movement was gotten within the limits of the nation-state. The reason is because the limit of effecting political change is the law: politics is altering, establishing, eradicating, policy modification and laws at the varied levels within the political realm. Ending slavery did what meaningful thing? It changing laws was meaningful. Anyone who believes that politics is social/cultural without politics being legal is a fool or lying. There is no nation-state that does not have a constitutional order, or a legal structure, or law.

Law is power because laws are enforced, and laws are enforced due to them being backed by the states violence monopoly. 

The state of our time is predicated on its consolidation of power of coercion: the princely state that goes all the way back to the 15th century Italian peninsula, in that they stated to its people: give the state power and the state will protect everyone within its boundaries from being subjected to violence externally (from France, more specifically). 

The kingly states that later emerged stated: give more power to us and we will protect you people from violence externally and internally. Every change in constitutional order, from the then and forward, are backed up by coercive power. This is a positive thing in that without it, people are exposed to arbitrary violence, which is normally much much worse than the codified violence that the state takes upon itself (with totalitarian exceptions, obviously).

All while the states in our day and age have both an internal constitutional order (for legitimizing their power to the citizens of their states) and an external calculated paradigm (for relational dealings with with other states). 

With the growth of the nation-state, laws were subsequently passed in the 20th century that constituted a order of the constitutional magnitude which was based on regulating nation wide economies in the interest of each given the citizens of the nation-states. Three different forms were needed in leading countries: liberalism, fascism, and communism. 

All three of these forms were various expressions of one and the matching historical trend, which was the increase of the national regulating the economy model at the nation-state level . With the increase of the global economy, though, the nation-state has needed to steadily give up its functionality to regulate the economy at the nation-state level ,and this has done for the state of affairs that is described, which the left doesn’t have a solution to overcome.

Politics is necessarily a manner of effecting law, and there isn’t a globalized constitutional order because there isn’t a globalized state that would be able enforce it. What remains is that politics is limited to nation-states, however nation-states themselves have lost their capacity to guide the global market. This state of affairs creates a virtually impossible situation for politics, and it lends to debates where neither side of the debate truly comprehends the historical conditions that have ushered us to where we are now

Part 1 

Part 3