WIP
A critique of Democracy
Democracy as a concept is not flawed. Since it's natural for the power vacuum to be taken by a government, we might as well make it one by the people for the people. However, my main problem is that hundreds of years of conflicts and division had changed human nature to a form that corrupts democracy.
To better explain this, we can look at most world governments. No matter where we are from, we can all agree that our peoples' don't vote for someone, the vote against someone. This problem is by far the worst in the USA, where your choice between Republican and Democrat will almost always be based on who you think is worse, not who you think is better.
In short, human nature tending to be antagonistic towards certain concepts or objects compromises democracy in a way that any politician can get on top of the social structure with nothing but lies and insults.
The individual and the community
One of the main divides in the libertarian sphere of politics is what is more important: Individual freedom or Collective cooperation. The first is more typically associated with the Right, the second - with the Left.
However, I take a completely different stance in the issue. I believe that there is a third option - freedom in general. To better explain it, you should be able to actually choose whether you want to act in your own interest as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, or be closer tied to society.
Za naszę i waszę swobodę
"For our and your freedom". This slogan was used by the rebels of the 1830 November Revolution in Poland. The rebels plastered it all over the flags, banners, weapons. This slogan tried to show the peoples of the then Russian Empire that Poland wasn't a waging a war against the people - it was waging a war against the oppressive Tsar.
Similar connotations were shown in the Greek war of independence. The anthem of the Greek revolutionaries included a large section that called all the peoples of the Ottoman Empire, from Bosnia to Lazica, to break off their shackles.
I want this type of international solidarity to return, for all ethnic groups and religions to put their differences aside and unite for one cause - freedom.
My form of Nationalism
The idea of Nations existed is primarily a product of Napoleon's conquests and the subsequent rise of Romantism across Europe. Before then people didn't have the urge to unite into groups based on Ethnicity, Religion, etc. Napoleon was the first European leader that gave rights to minorities and repressed groups, ended feudalism in Germany, and created the first German and Italian states in ages. Soon the spread of Romantism as a prominent art and philosophical movement reinforced these newly spreading ideals.
We saw such national upbringings in Poland in the form of nostalgia for the Commonwealth, in Belgium with an emphasis on Catholic unity with a tint of Burgundian nostalgia, in Germany and Italy with a disdain for old feudal systems that killed their countrymen for centuries, in Hungary with the nostalgia of having independent governing systems, etc
However, in the 21st century, romanticism is dead, people are already united enough, and there is no need to bring up nostalgia or praise of historical states and figures. As such, I believe that modern nationalism shouldn't be pride in what the nation did, but pride in what the nation can do with backing of historical events.
For example, imagine a nation that needs a starting point to get people to help reform the education system. It's government should tell the people that they can make an important discovery for humanity, because they know they can do it as proven by a scientist from that nation that made an important discovery centuries prior. With this pride and hope to be like their ancestors the people will have a reason to aid the reform of the education system, to make people as educated as that scientist everyone looks up to now.
As utopian as the idea sounds, we must try our best to implement such a form of Nationalism worldwide.
Why there can never be actual anarchism
While I do follow the ideas of Philosophical Anarchism, I oppose it in a political sense.
It all comes down to human nature. If the state is dissolved, the vacuum will be up for the taking by anyone willing to take it. If we dissolve a government, two more will be created, it's like the mythological Hydra.
Another issue is that political Anarchism relies too much on barely existent human goodwill, which is not only too utopian, but also naïve depending on the circumstances.
So, what government system should there be?
I believe that the government should be a coalition of worker unions and local councils, somewhere in between classical Syndicalism and Platformism. I am not opposed to other government systems, however, since establishing my preferred one would be near impossible, it's better to conform than to waste valuable resources on making a government, that can only rise after the collapse of the previous society, instead of investing it into the economy or development efforts.
The 5 principles of a modern Syndicalist economy
Self Reliance - the economy should be ready for any global situation and to be able to sustain itself.
Preserving the Market - by reforming it to be a self-regulating socialist one.
Economic Democracy - establish measures to promote self-employment, co-operatives, weaken monopolies, etc.
Regional Specialisation - if a region of the country is agrarian, has always been agrarian, and has great agrarian potential, then keep it that way. Same for industrial centres.
Collaboration - class war is a useless, costly endeavour, that will only hinder the leftist movement. Better compromise "with the above" to actually implement your ideas than spend resources on something that only boosts morale, and even that is not for certain.
How do we achieve Neosyndicalism?
I honestly don't know. I am not a leader, I'm an ideologue, I only write the ideas without a clue on how to implement them.
User Test
- Civic Axis
- Type of Rule Axis
- Economic Axis
- Diplomatic Axis
- Geopolitics Axis
- Cultural Axis
- Technological Axis
- Environmental Axis
- War Axis
Results
Neosyndicalism - (90/90)
Leerderism - (40/90)
Ideology Relations
![](/images/Platformism.png)
Syndicalism - I am trying my
worst best to revive you.
![](/images/Philan.png)
![](/images/Nazi.png)
![](/images/MOAball.png)
Self-Insert Relations
Leerderism - Based economics, based cultural views, an a whole lot more "based"'s all around.
![](/images/Mfaicon.png)
![](/images/Hysteriaball.png)
![](/images/MeadowBasiliskIcon2.png)
![](/images/Brazlib.png)
![](/images/StockMarketC.png)
![](/images/SMCAlt.png)
![](/images/Bax.png)
Borker - We are both syndicalists, just the opposite forms of the ideology. You would have been almost perfect if you stayed Anarchist, yet you decided to become a fash and began "moderately" supporting the east instead of resisting all Imperialism.
![](/images/FASHGUY84.png)
![](/images/ConstantineLuo.png)
![](/images/Dem.png)
![](/images/Troll.png)
![](/images/Zi%C3%B3%C5%82kowskiizm.png)
![](/images/Timocratic_Neocameralism.png)
![](/images/PostPanda.png)
![](/images/Gamerist.png)
![](/images/NCortexball.png)
Literature
In order of when I read each book
- My first days in the White House by
Huey Pierce Long(1935)
- Progress and Poverty by
Henry George(1879)
- Manifesto of Futurism by
Filippo Tommaso Marinetti(1909)
- Germany Tomorrow by
Otto Strasser(1940)
- Road to Power by
Karl Kautsky(1909)
- Democratic Confederalism by
Abdullah Öcalan(2011)
- Reflections on Violence by
Georges Sorel (1908)
- Platform: Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists by
Nestor Makhno(1926)
- Manifesto of Fascism by
Alceste de Ambris and
Filippo Tommaso Marinetti(1919)
![]() ![]() | |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|---|
![]() |
![]() |
- ↑ Before you ask, I didn't include the Zaporižžian Cossacks because they were turned into the Kuban Cossacks. Using two icons for effectively the same host made up of the same cultural practices is a bit useless.