Elections in various countries

[Travis B.]

Personally, as a former anarchist, I see the anarchists as having a lot of good ideas but having a bit too much faith in the general population, likely naively seeing authority as the source of all evil. To me, oppression need not come solely from capitalism and/or the state, and hence I personally disagree with anarchists who see the concept of 'rights' as only being necessary so far as capitalism and/or the state exist. Likewise, I do not think things like racism and sexism can be done away with simply by doing away with capitalism and the state.

Quite. The explosive growth and unshakable popularity of reactionary politics has definitely shaken my faith in humanity. It seems increasingly obvious that humans have strong inclinations toward tribalism, violence, and superstition that require some active effort to curb. If nothing else, we need institutions like universal education that teach people how to reason rather than relying on their gut and acclimatize them to people outside their "tribe".

Trump never had "unshakable popularity" --- at the peak of his popularity, when he was elected, he only got 49.8% of the popular vote, and his popularity has headed steadily downwards ever since. According to the most recent Economist / YouGov poll 36% approve and 58% disapprove of Donald Trump's job performance.

Reform UK in the most recent elections got 26% of the vote share ─ sizeable but not a landslide. Also note that the Greens, Plaid Cymru, and to a lesser degree the SNP also polled well, so this was probably more a referendum on Keir Starmer than any real approval of Reform UK.

AfD in the most recent German federal election won 20.8% of the vote share ─ also sizeable but again not a landslide.

And while it is not a left-wing win per se, Fidesz in Hungary got defeated in a landslide last month.

These are some examples of while things might not be great, they still are not "explosive growth and unshakable popularity" of the far right.

[Travis B.]

If you want freedom for the worker and the rule of law, without the failures of either liberalism or socialism, anarchism has a lot of potential. (Especially the updated form of e.g. Bookchin, not the retro-rural dream of Kropotkin.)

How would the anarchists you mean 1) get there in the first place, and then 2) handle the existence of non-anarchists, or more generally people uninterested in going along with the way the new society is run, in their societies? Besides, how would they decide which of the various models for anarchist structures that their thinkers have come up with would be used?

I suspect that anarchism, like pacifism, is an idea that can only work if everyone supports it, which is another way of saying that it's an idea that can't work.

And I'm very sceptical about the possibility of human beings living together without some people having some kind of power over others. Even if it's not the kind of power structures you might first think of if you hear the word "power".

About how anarchists seek to organize society in their image, the typical view is that they do so by organizing society along their lines from the bottom up as horizontal federations of directly democratically-organized workplaces, neighborhoods, and like, and by stomping into the ground everyone else who gets in the way of this with militias (as (even if they deny that they believe in 'rights') they believe in the right to self-defense at any level of organization, from the individual to the society, and they specifically believe that no one has the right to exert authority over another, so anyone has the right to resist with force any attempt to do so).

A key note is that anarchists do not believe in centralization and are open to heterogeneity so far as no one attempts to use it as an excuse to impose authority over anyone else. As a result, they are open to a patchwork of different models throughout society but are against any attempts to implement capitalism on a local level, because implementing capitalism would inherently involve imposing authority on others (as capitalism without authority simply would not be capitalism).

Of course, a problem with this is that there is no real way any concept of guaranteed 'rights' can exist in practice, as no one has the ability to enforce them. Instead, one is limited to relying on people's benevolence, with little recourse when people are not so benevolent, as in many cases one's only recourse would be to not associate, which is a problem if, say, your local grocery store refuses to sell you food and you don't have land on which you can feed yourself. As I have mentioned in a thread a while ago on here, my own solution to this is by instead of solely having horizontal federations, rather having councils of councils, and implementing guaranteed rights at a higher level that cannot be overruled at a lower level.

Another problem with this is that it is very vulnerable to NIMBYism, and again my solution is to rely on higher level councils making decisions for all the councils they receive delegates from which cannot be overturned by an individual lower council.

[Raphael]

Thank you, Travis. Interesting confirmation of my admittedly rather cynical view that anarchism, in practice, means rule by anarchists, no matter how much the anarchists themselves might deny that.

[Travis B.]

Thank you, Travis. Interesting confirmation of my admittedly rather cynical view that anarchism, in practice, means rule by anarchists, no matter how much the anarchists themselves might deny that.

What I am personally for is closer to "rule by anarchists" than what the anarchists themselves are for, in that I believe in a society based on council democracy, where you have a pyramidal structure of councils (based at the bottom level on things like neighborhoods and workplaces), with each council directly democratically electing delegates with affirmative mandates from amongst their number to the next-lowest council.

What the anarchists themselves are for is a disparate network of voluntary associations organized internally in a directly-democratic fashion, where everyone has the right to free association, which includes the right to not associate. Their militias are for collective self-defense and are likewise voluntary and directly democratic; the main reason they exist are that capitalists and Marxist-Leninists will attempt to impose their will if given the chance, and preventing this by force is a legitimate act of self-defense.

While one could argue that capitalists should have the right to carry on and implement capitalism on their own, unmolested by anarchists, from the anarchist perspective capitalism requires the exercise of authority and is hence illegitimate and those who would be under said capitalists have a right to defend themselves from such imposition of authority.

Really my problem here is not that "anarchism, in practice, means rule by anarchists", but precisely the opposite, that anarchism does not provide mechanisms for imposing respecting people's rights on people loath to respect them or for carrying out the kind of necessary projects ranging from old people's homes to power plants to general development that NIMBY's perennially object to. Also, anarchist militias without some kind of solid organization are unlikely to provide effective resistance to the armed forces of capitalists and Marxist-Leninists.

To me council democracy has the advantages of anarchism without the disadvantages -- it is directly democratic from the bottom up, giving the whole population a direct say in decision-making (rather than the "you get to vote for choice A or choice B once every two years"), yet provides means for ensuring rights are respected and avoiding NIMBY-ism, and militias organized by councils are more likely to be an effective fighting force necessary from protecting worker's democracy from attempts by both capitalists and Marxist-Leninists to suppress it than disparate self-appointed anarchists with guns.

[rotting bones]

https://maktoobmedia.com/post?id=115436 ... win-report

https://maktoobmedia.com/post?id=115469 ... rtificates

https://maktoobmedia.com/post?id=115462 ... ment%C2%A0

https://maktoobmedia.com/post?id=115431 ... -bengal-cm

https://maktoobmedia.com/post?id=115336 ... -deletions

Contemplating suicide.

I don't understand why 21st century politicians have so much difficulty listening to voters. In a democracy, it doesn't matter if you "know better". If the people want good jobs, you MUST break whatever is necessary to create good jobs for them. If you don't, minorities will be scapegoated for your failure. Either knowingly do the "wrong" thing or be responsible for genocide. "Wrongness" is your job as a democratic politician.

[Raphael]

Contemplating suicide.

Please don't.

[rotting bones]

Contemplating suicide.

Please don't.

The way I see it, my sane options at this point are Canada, China or the French Foreign Legion. I'll be too old for that last one in a few years. There's no telling if the first two will pan out.

I'm leaning towards staying in Kolkata and making life unpleasant for my dear fellow countrymen. No sense making their job easy for them.

Ironic how Muslims are the last Bengalis in West Bengal. A large segment of Hindu society is basically Pakistani now.

[rotting bones]

For the first time, I wish the Maoist insurgents had been victorious in West Bengal. They won in Nepal, the Maoist government sucked as expected, they were replaced, and now Nepal looks to be in a better position than we are. The Maoists succeeded in dragging the Overton window to the left, making Nazism unthinkable for a decade. A demsoc revolution would be better, but that was never an option.

[WeepingElf]

I have the impression that the current governing coalition of CDU/CSU (center-right) and SPD (center-left) is just about to break up, and we'll get a coalition of CDU/CSU and AfD (far right) instead. Yuck.

[Raphael]

I have the impression that the current governing coalition of CDU/CSU (center-right) and SPD (center-left) is just about to break up, and we'll get a coalition of CDU/CSU and AfD (far right) instead. Yuck.

What makes you think that?

[malloc]

I have the impression that the current governing coalition of CDU/CSU (center-right) and SPD (center-left) is just about to break up, and we'll get a coalition of CDU/CSU and AfD (far right) instead. Yuck.

This you?

Nope. No other party is willing to form a coalition with the AfD, not even the conservative CDU/CSU. Instead, there is an ongoing serious discussion about banning the AfD (which will be difficult because the hurdles set by the constitution are very high). All mainstream democratic parties agree that the AfD is too incompetent and too dangerous to be entrusted with any kind of responsibility. Also, no other party is involved in that many public scandals. Sure, the AfD is a challenge to German democracy, but German democracy is far from defenseless. And zompist is right about history: it doesn't repeat itself, and most of the big mistakes are made only once.

[WeepingElf]

I have the impression that the current governing coalition of CDU/CSU (center-right) and SPD (center-left) is just about to break up, and we'll get a coalition of CDU/CSU and AfD (far right) instead. Yuck.

What makes you think that?

The current news. You must have been living in a cave. The coalition is so wracked by disagreement between the two parties that the only thing that keeps the SPD in it is the prospect of a coalition of CDU/CSU and AfD in case the coalition breaks up, and the Brandmauer ('firewall') rhetoric is just rhetoric, nothing else. The problem is that the SPD is in free fall in the opinion polls, some polls have them even in the single digit range. They are thus stuck in a dilemma: either stay in the coalition and erode further into insignificance, or leave the coalition and thereby clear the road for the AfD into the federal government. One SPD politician called the coalition with the CDU/CSU the "last bullet of democracy"; it has been fired, and it missed.

And there are quite a few issues where CDU/CSU and AfD broadly agree: friendly relations to Trump; an end to the Energiewende (though not for the same reason: while the AfD says that climate change was a lie, the CDU/CSU merely opines it was "not really urgent" and "too expensive"); permanent border controls to keep irregular immigrants out; a stronger military with compulsory conscription; and a general social conservatism. All these are issues where the CDU/CSU is at odds with the SPD, and in broad agreement with the AfD. Also, the Brandmauer was pretty unique in Europe and a German Sonderweg; in many European countries, the center-right parties happily govern in coalitions with the far right. Also, they cooperate in the European Parliament. The disagreements between the center-right and the far right are in degree; those between the center-right and the center-left are in kind.

[WeepingElf]

I have the impression that the current governing coalition of CDU/CSU (center-right) and SPD (center-left) is just about to break up, and we'll get a coalition of CDU/CSU and AfD (far right) instead. Yuck.

This you?

Nope. No other party is willing to form a coalition with the AfD, not even the conservative CDU/CSU. Instead, there is an ongoing serious discussion about banning the AfD (which will be difficult because the hurdles set by the constitution are very high). All mainstream democratic parties agree that the AfD is too incompetent and too dangerous to be entrusted with any kind of responsibility. Also, no other party is involved in that many public scandals. Sure, the AfD is a challenge to German democracy, but German democracy is far from defenseless. And zompist is right about history: it doesn't repeat itself, and most of the big mistakes are made only once.

Mood swings. I had a bad day today; on good days I am hopeful that such a coalition won't happen; on bad days I am fearful that it will happen. I am not sure about the position of the CDU/CSU with regard to the AfD - they claim not to want to cooperate with them, but they have cooperated "on particular issues" with them in the not-so-distant past, and thus I feel that the Brandmauer is not much more than just rhetoric, and the main factor that keeps them from forming a coalition with the AfD is that they are aware of how many voters they would alienate if they did. The Brandmauer is also a uniquely German thing, certainly due to the special sensitivity of the Nazi past; in other European countries, center-right parties ally with the far right without any qualms.

[rotting bones]

https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-b ... as-3210268

[WeepingElf]

I have the impression that the current governing coalition of CDU/CSU (center-right) and SPD (center-left) is just about to break up, and we'll get a coalition of CDU/CSU and AfD (far right) instead. Yuck.

This you?

Nope. No other party is willing to form a coalition with the AfD, not even the conservative CDU/CSU. Instead, there is an ongoing serious discussion about banning the AfD (which will be difficult because the hurdles set by the constitution are very high). All mainstream democratic parties agree that the AfD is too incompetent and too dangerous to be entrusted with any kind of responsibility. Also, no other party is involved in that many public scandals. Sure, the AfD is a challenge to German democracy, but German democracy is far from defenseless. And zompist is right about history: it doesn't repeat itself, and most of the big mistakes are made only once.

Mood swings. I had a bad day today; on good days I am hopeful that such a coalition won't happen; on bad days I am fearful that it will happen. I am not sure about the position of the CDU/CSU with regard to the AfD - they claim not to want to cooperate with them, but they have cooperated "on particular issues" with them in the not-so-distant past, and thus I feel that the Brandmauer is not much more than just rhetoric, and the main factor that keeps them from forming a coalition with the AfD is that they are aware of how many voters they would alienate if they did. The Brandmauer is also a uniquely German thing, certainly due to the special sensitivity of the Nazi past; in other European countries, center-right parties ally with the far right without any qualms.

The bad day has passed, and now I am thinking clearer again. The Brandmauer may be little more than rhetoric, but the CDU/CSU can't really go back behind it, people will take them by their word. Any attempt to form a coalition with the AfD, which could hardly be prepared in secrecy, would cause a major scandal that would cost them many votes, and result in many members leaving the party. So if they tried, it would probably massively backfire even before they get to try to actually elect a chancellor depending on AfD votes.

[Raphael]

Not sure how the CDU/CSU and the AfD could agree on a foreign policy agenda.

[WeepingElf]

Not sure how the CDU/CSU and the AfD could agree on a foreign policy agenda.

Indeed, that's a major point of disagreement between the two (though less so than before Trump), and another reason beside the major scandal a coalition attempt would raise why they probably won't even try.

[malloc]

The bad day has passed, and now I am thinking clearer again. The Brandmauer may be little more than rhetoric, but the CDU/CSU can't really go back behind it, people will take them by their word. Any attempt to form a coalition with the AfD, which could hardly be prepared in secrecy, would cause a major scandal that would cost them many votes, and result in many members leaving the party. So if they tried, it would probably massively backfire even before they get to try to actually elect a chancellor depending on AfD votes.

We can only hope so. It does alarm me that the far right just keeps gaining popularity across the world. Even the disastrous effects of the Trump regime have done little to dampen enthusiasm for reactionary politics elsewhere.

[Raphael]

Looks like Alberta wants to bet everything on the Trump card: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Alberta_referendum https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton ... -9.7208162

Leaving aside morality, ethics, and overall scumbaggery, I'd say how smart or dumb this is as a move depends on political developments in the USA. If Trumpism ends up permanently politically dominant in the USA, it might be, in hindsight, a very smart move. On the other hand, if Trumpism ends up beaten in the USA, and the USA ends up with a decidedly anti-Trumpist political leadership, a hypothetical independent Alberta would find itself as a landlocked nation entirely surrounded by only two other countries, with both of whose governments it would be on bad terms.

[malloc]

Looks like Alberta wants to bet everything on the Trump card: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Alberta_referendum https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton ... -9.7208162

Leaving aside morality, ethics, and overall scumbaggery, I'd say how smart or dumb this is as a move depends on political developments in the USA. If Trumpism ends up permanently politically dominant in the USA, it might be, in hindsight, a very smart move. On the other hand, if Trumpism ends up beaten in the USA, and the USA ends up with a decidedly anti-Trumpist political leadership, a hypothetical independent Alberta would find itself as a landlocked nation entirely surrounded by only two other countries, with both of whose governments it would be on bad terms.

Will the bad news never cease? The right has been on one hell of a winning streak (at least in terms of electoral victories) for entirely too long. Aside from the problems you mentioned, this will make things much harder for the rest of Canada by putting two border crossings between British Columbia and the rest of the country. Surely there must be some way to fight this disastrous measure at the federal level.


It's also quite possible that Alberta will become a US state at some point, which would further strengthen GOP electoral prospects.