This is my own attempt to create a space for discussion, information, etc. on the subject of indigenous anarchism. If this is taken as advertising and against the rules please tell me to delete the post. if you are interested, you can come in and give it life. If anyone is interested in being a moderator, let me know

https://www.reddit.com/r/ParaTodosTodo/s/YJSaHwPBus

I'm co-hosting meetings of the Social-Ecologically-minded in central NJ.

If you are in the area I cordially invite you to join!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/444633964660367/

https://www.meetup.com/social-ecology-meetup-nj/

If you don't have accounts on either of those websites, you can also message me for details.

So I'm doing a lot of reading and studying and don't know every position argued for but I've heard that bookchin has supported electoralism within democratic confederalism.

Now here's my confusion with this. When people say electoralism, do they mean electoralism in the sense of the current capitalist nation state system, as in running candidates in that system and supporting them? Or, because this involves anarchist thought, does electoralism mean anything involving elections and the popular vote system, as opposed to things like consensus etc.

PS: I might be asking a lot of noob questions in the near future like this, I hope it's not too unwelcome, my reading skills aren't that fast.

I heard he rejected both collectivism and individualism.

The Movement for a Democratic Society (Kurdish: Tevgera Civaka Demokratîk, TEV-DEM) is a left-wing umbrella organization in northern Syria founded in January 2011 with the goal of organizing Syrian society under a democratic confederalist system.

About a year ago, there was an article discussing the rise of 'neo-Feudal' estates in the Hudson Valley and many other places in the U.S. - affluent individuals acquiring vast tracts of rural land and leaving farmers and land managers to secure their livelihoods as tenant-employees, catering to the whims of their wealthy landlords who are primarily interested in farming for tax credits and aesthetics.

I work for a high-end landscape architecture and planning firm where many projects align with this pattern: Our clients are extremely wealthy individuals acquiring large rural properties primarily as vacation homes, and secondarily as an investment via farming, timber, and events. These properties often have numerous employees, including farm managers, gardeners, and ecological/restoration technicians, who live on-site year-round (unlike the owners).

Fortunately, our firm works with some 'enlightened' clients who, despite their wealth, aim to be ecological and, to a lesser extent, socially responsible. They invest in conservation easements, ecological monitoring, and restoration. Some are even interested in creating publicly accessible trail systems and community partnerships, or in understanding the unique history of the land, including indigenous history and histories of enslavement.

On optimistic days, I believe convincing the wealthy to spend their money on such initiatives can be impactful, and have benefits which extend beyond their property boundaries. However, on pessimistic days, I question if these efforts are mere window-dressing and - at worst - fall into the trap of "justifying" the role of the benevolent landlord. My question for those familiar with land, commoning, property law, and cooperative models is: How can planners/designers steer these estates towards real common good? Conservation easements and public trail easements seem like feasible options, but can they provide long-term agency for local communities? What other ways exist to secure shared community control and benefit from these estates?

I'm particularly interested in advocating for the farm managers and ecological technicians who spend the most time on these properties. How can we elevate their roles beyond at-will employees to establish models that empower them, moving beyond the position of elite-serfs? While I acknowledge the systemic nature of the huge wealth and land gap in this country, I'm looking for thoughts on the most effective tools at hand (aside from convincing clients to divide and redistribute their land.) Thank you for any discussion, thoughts, or recommended reading!

About a year ago there was a NYT article about the phenomenon of “neo-Feudal” estates in the Hudson Valley (and many other places in the U.S.): the not-so-new pattern of rural land being amassed by the uber-wealthy, while actual farmers and land managers have to try to secure their stability and livelihood as tenant-employees, catering to the unique whims of their landed benefactors (who generally care about the farming first and foremost for the tax credit, and secondly for the aesthetic).

I work for a high-end landscape architecture and planning firm where many of our projects fit this mold: Our clients are extremely wealthy individuals who are acquiring *huge* tracts of rural land that they don’t really know what to do with. In many cases, these properties are first-and-foremost vacation homes for a single family to use a few weeks/months of the year, and secondarily investment properties that may include some farming (usually cattle), timber, and fancy events… In most cases, the clients will also have many employees (farm managers, full-time gardeners, even full-time ecological/restoration technicians) who will live on the property with their families (often in new homes paid for by the owners) and thus likely spend far more time there than the owners ever will.

At our firm, we have the benefit of having many so-called “enlightened” clients who - despite their extreme wealth - aspire to be good land stewards ecologically and - to a lesser extent - socially: They are interested in putting land into conservation easements and spending significant money on ecological monitoring and restoration. Some clients are also interested in creating publicly-accessible trail systems, community partnerships, and public-facing businesses/events on portions of their property (as long as they’re far enough away to not impair their sacred sense of “privacy”). Others are also interested - again, with some prodding - in understanding the unique history of the land they have acquired, including indigenous history and histories of enslavement, and how they might research, conserve, and even share that history.

On my more optimistic days, I feel that convincing the uber-wealthy to spend some of their seemingly-unlimited capital on these types of things is good work given the tools at hand - especially if it can have long-term impacts that extend beyond the property boundary and beyond their particular owner. Perhaps some of what we do - like advocating for a public trail easement or a partnership with a local farming cooperative - could even be seen as a kind of subversive commoning. On more pessimistic days, I feel that *most* of these efforts are really just virtuous window-dressing on top of us designing their pool houses and saunas, and at worst fall into the trap of "justifying" the role of the benevolent landlord.

My question for others who think/read about land, commoning, property law/easements, landlord-tenant relationships, cooperative/profit-sharing models, etc. - What do you think are the more impactful, long-lasting ways that planners/designers can work to steer would-be neo-manors towards real common good, for both farmers/land managers and the local communities near these estates? Conservation easements and public trail easements (and the tax incentives that support them) seem like some of the low-hanging fruit for us to push on clients… But can easements actually give local communities more long-term agency/right to access? Are there other ways to wrest some amount of shared community control and benefit from these huge estates? Most days, I find myself particularly interested in the lives of the farm managers and ecological technicians and how I can be a better advocate for them as the people who will actually spend the most time on these properties and come to know them as their own, and who should probably have more agency and stake in the management of the land than they do as simply at-will employees of the clients… Are there models of owner/land manager relationships that elevate them beyond the position of elite-serfs? (I also understand the position that “the problem is systemic and design/planning alone can’t really do anything meaningful to fix it”, but I guess I’m looking for thoughts on the most-effective tools at land, short of just convincing our clients to divide and redistribute their land...) Thanks for any discussion, thoughts, or further reading!