My professed anarchism and socialism are not doctrinaire nor "trapped in ideology".
At the most basic, I see my commitment to anarchism and socialism as based in beliefs in both individual freedom and questioning of unjustified coercive power (in the case of anarchism) and social justice and equality (in the case of socialism).
I see them as essential principles and values in my politics.
Similarly I see my general belief in democracy as based on the general principle of freedom and opposition to tyranny, and not necessarily in conflict with a belief in libertarianism or anarchism.
I do of course realize that it does seem contradictory to profess anarchism at the same time as a belief in democracy, and I will write more about this at some point. I see SUBSIDIARITY and DEVOLUTION and GRASS ROOTS DEMOCRACY as important concepts in this regard - as ways of bringing individuals closer to decisions and policies that affect them.
I am also broadly speaking against extreme nationalism, but broadly speaking in favour of democracy, which is possibly another area of ideological conflict and contradiction.
I am not the kind of anarchist that doesn't vote on principle. On the contrary, I believe in voting on principle and I even believe it should be compulsory.
In Steven Pinker's book "Enlightenment Now", I was not fully convinced by his contention that "anarchy" - in the sense of pre-existing chaos and lack of government - is more violent than tyranny.
Even if this is in some sense true, this seems a minor point. I tend to agree with Thoreau that "that government is best which governs the least."
But I was overall very heartened by Pinker's chapter on Democracy and its progress since the Enlightenment and very much convinced by it.
Though he didn't seem to deal with the argument of thinkers like Chomsky that capitalism - private and business ownership and control of production - is in some ways antithetical to democracy.
I remain a Green and I do not think that Pinker successfully dealt with this ideology.
I see this as an example of CULTURAL LAG - where a culture "lags behind" its reality.
In this case it is a cultural lag regarding an ideology that is far more up to date and in tune with reality than Marxism or other nineteenth century ideologies.
I agree with Pinker that it is regrettable that Marxism still has so many adherents today, which I further see as an example of CULTURAL LAG.
I am a humanist environmentalist and I don't believe that Green politics is anti-human.
Green Politics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_politics
I fully see Green politics as an outgrowth and development and part of the Enlightenment and not being in contradiction with it. It has undoubtedly had influences from Romanticism but I feel that it is fully part of the Enlightenment, and fully compatible with it.
I was glad that Pinker spoke approvingly of non-violence and pointed out that it can work.
At the most basic, I see my commitment to anarchism and socialism as based in beliefs in both individual freedom and questioning of unjustified coercive power (in the case of anarchism) and social justice and equality (in the case of socialism).
I see them as essential principles and values in my politics.
Similarly I see my general belief in democracy as based on the general principle of freedom and opposition to tyranny, and not necessarily in conflict with a belief in libertarianism or anarchism.
I do of course realize that it does seem contradictory to profess anarchism at the same time as a belief in democracy, and I will write more about this at some point. I see SUBSIDIARITY and DEVOLUTION and GRASS ROOTS DEMOCRACY as important concepts in this regard - as ways of bringing individuals closer to decisions and policies that affect them.
I am also broadly speaking against extreme nationalism, but broadly speaking in favour of democracy, which is possibly another area of ideological conflict and contradiction.
I am not the kind of anarchist that doesn't vote on principle. On the contrary, I believe in voting on principle and I even believe it should be compulsory.
In Steven Pinker's book "Enlightenment Now", I was not fully convinced by his contention that "anarchy" - in the sense of pre-existing chaos and lack of government - is more violent than tyranny.
Even if this is in some sense true, this seems a minor point. I tend to agree with Thoreau that "that government is best which governs the least."
But I was overall very heartened by Pinker's chapter on Democracy and its progress since the Enlightenment and very much convinced by it.
Though he didn't seem to deal with the argument of thinkers like Chomsky that capitalism - private and business ownership and control of production - is in some ways antithetical to democracy.
I remain a Green and I do not think that Pinker successfully dealt with this ideology.
I see this as an example of CULTURAL LAG - where a culture "lags behind" its reality.
In this case it is a cultural lag regarding an ideology that is far more up to date and in tune with reality than Marxism or other nineteenth century ideologies.
I agree with Pinker that it is regrettable that Marxism still has so many adherents today, which I further see as an example of CULTURAL LAG.
I am a humanist environmentalist and I don't believe that Green politics is anti-human.
Green Politics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_politics
I fully see Green politics as an outgrowth and development and part of the Enlightenment and not being in contradiction with it. It has undoubtedly had influences from Romanticism but I feel that it is fully part of the Enlightenment, and fully compatible with it.
I was glad that Pinker spoke approvingly of non-violence and pointed out that it can work.