Two Questions About the Word "Politics" as Prolefeed or Reality

[Pete Walker]

Question #1: In a future anarcho community, if a group attempts to re-raise The State, are those defusing the attempt participating in "politics"?Question #2: In present and future language among anarchos, is there a better term, e.g. "community problem solving", with "politics" being a word only referring to the culture of coercion?Background:To better understand mainstream culture I joined a discussion group on Facebook called "Secular Politics" (to me an oxymoron) and with the exception of one other anarcho in the group, they overall use very different meanings for words than he or I. I stated several times in group discussion that my perspective was non-politics for the same reason it's non-slavery.Most dictionaries have from four to seven meanings for the word "politics", which to me makes it an almost useless word because most discussion about it means first clarifying terms, an effort extremely and emotionally resisted in mainstream culture and especially in the group's overall "discourse" (one of that group's favorite words, evidently meaning noise with communication optional, or plausible deniability as in "I communicate but you don't".)According to onelook.com's listings of mainstream dictionaries, "prolefeed" is only defined in wikipedia.org and urbandictionary.com. "Politics" is defined in 31 of them; here's two:From Wiktionary:1. A methodology and activities associated with running a government, an organization, or a movement.2. The profession of conducting political affairs.3. One's political stands and opinions.4. Political maneuvers or diplomacy between people, groups, or organizations, especially involving power, influence or conflict. From Collins:1. (functioning as singular) the practice or study of the art and science of forming, directing, and administrating states and other political units; the art and science of government; political science2. (functioning as singular) the complex or aggregate of relationships of people in society, esp those relationships involving authority or power3. (functioning as plural) political activities or affairs ⇒ "party politics"4. (functioning as singular) the business or profession of politics5. (functioning as singular or plural) any activity concerned with the acquisition of power, gaining one's own ends, etc ⇒ "company politics are frequently vicious"6. (functioning as plural) opinions, principles, sympathies, etc, with respect to politics ⇒ "his conservative politics"7. (functioning as plural)- a. the policy-formulating aspects of government as distinguished from the administrative, or legal- b. the civil functions of government as distinguished from the military

[Arius]

Question #1: In a future anarcho community, if a group attempts to re-raise The State, are those defusing the attempt participating in "politics"?

By what means is the attempt made and defused?

If someone tries to exercise force against you, then your physical resistance of their attempts would rightly be called "defense" rather than "politics".

If a group of people are having a conversation about initiating force against you, then your verbal attempts to dissuade them might be called "negotiation".  Though, I think "pleading" might be a better word to use when addressing a potentially violent mob.

"Politics", generally speaking, encompasses the family of discussions on who should hold the monopoly on violence, and where such violence should be directed for the purpose of resolving interpersonal problems.  Anarchists are opposed to the use of violence as a solution to interpersonal problems.  Anarchists are most rightly described as either "apolitical" or "anti-political".  That is, Anarchists, generally speaking, are either opposed to political practices or do not believe that such practices are effective.

However, if you find someone referring to a decidedly Anarcho-concept as "political", there are two possibilities.

First, they do not understand that all Anarcho-compatible ideas are, necessarily, incompatible with the use of force as a solution to problems.  For example, I might propose that taking antibiotics is a good solution for some illnesses.  If someone claims that is a "political viewpoint", they have understood me to say "people should be made to take antibiotics, regardless of their opinion on the matter".  A good resolution to this problem is to remind the person that you are opposed to the use of force as a means to resolve interpersonal problems.

Second, I am not aware that the idea I have proposed necessitates the use of force.  That is, I have accidentally advanced an Anarcho-incompatible concept as-if it were Anarcho-compatible.  For example, I might propose that, in a free society, there will be a voluntary form of taxation which takes place.  While the idea does include the word "voluntary", it has placed that word next to a word which has "involuntary" as a necessary property.  Thus, I have either proposed a contradictory idea, or I have tried to reframe an Anarcho-incompatible idea as Anarcho-compatible.

Question #2: In present and future language among anarchos, is there a better term, e.g. "community problem solving", with "politics" being a word only referring to the culture of coercion?

If you have a conversation with people who understands "we" and "the government" to be synonymous, there is no word (or pattern of words) which will carry the meaning you wish to convey.

If, for example, you say "we must work toward a mutually acceptable solution to this problem", a "political" person will hear "the government must be fully participatory".

If you say "Violence is an unacceptable solution to interpersonal problems", they will hear "only the government may exercise force".

It's funny, but the problem isn't language.  The people with whom you are conversing do not have access to the concept you are trying to reference.

Simply, you are having a conversation which includes too many euphemisms.  I would recommend you use very small, precise words.  For example, don't use the words "government", "state", "politics", "party", "tax", "police", "military", "jail", or "law".  Those are all words which function to hide the true nature of the thing they reference.  Instead, use phrases like "people who tell other people what to do", "people who claim the right to initiate force against other people", "conversations about where to rightly direct violence", "well-ordered mob", "taking someone's things without permission", "people who injure other people", "people who travel to far-away lands to injure other people", "large buildings, full of kidnapped people", "opinions, backed by violence".

If you stick to rejecting euphemisms, you can engender questions in your audience (i.e. "Do you really see it that way?", "Why do you say it like that?", "Does that accurately describe the situation?", etc.).  Once they're ready to listen (you must get through the natural troll-vetting process), you may be successful in explaining why "we" and "the government" aren't the same thing.  Once someone has access to the idea that the government is not the people, you can discuss "politics" in the context you're trying to introduce.

[Pete Walker]

Arius, thanks for the info.On Q#1 I agree and some interesting mainstream culture observation is some say politics doesn't have to be coersive, that it's only individuals who make it so; others use all forms of sophism to say politics is a good thing; others simply ignore any challenge.On Q#2 I fully agree and again, thanks.