- Re: Does it include the all-important topic: 'How to make anarchism actually work in a mass, industrial Archived Message
Posted by dereklane
on December 19, 2019, 6:05 pm, in reply to "Re: Does it include the all-important topic: 'How to make anarchism actually work in a mass, industrial"
|
I've seen that both sides John including directed at me. Assuming you're referring to Keith, as my mum says, it takes two to tango. For what it's worth I'd say your description of anarchy is a little watered down to possible meaninglessness. As soon as we decide on central governance we lose anarchy and stand to gain authority instead. They are not related. Aboriginal examples of anarchy were based on mutual respect and humility, and they are concepts that westerners have done without for so long it doesn't seem possible to refind them. We labour under the false assumptions that humans must be cruel, and again, there is evidence of that in droves (and across the board) on this site (alongside good examples of people who are not so). A disagreement is not an excuse for vitriole. Regarding the messageboard, it was your corollary with anarchy I was responding to, so telling me that of course it isn't the same thing is making my point for me. And as far as repetition goes, in anarchist decision making the goal is unanimity. If the thoughts of those in disagreement are ignored or ridiculed (that are in minority), no conclusions are reached. Hence the need for patience, respect and humility. It requires us to consider perspectives we reflexively dislike with honesty and detachment from our own egotistical desires to be unquestioned (that same ego that allows for brutal central rule). If we can't make that here, we probably can't do it anywhere. On the other hand, if we can, there is hope. But first we must decide to let the western style cruelty and oneupmanship attitudes go. That I've received similar types of ugly response on the issues discussed as Keith (who ripostes) but with a very different technique for debate says to me that the reactions are not so much to do with attitude but with the meat of the proffered arguments. Following on from that it shows that we still are by and large unable to deal with those who disagree with our opinions, and that we are therefore still firmly locked into a western mindset of cruelty, and victory. That's no setting for anarchy. We must lead by example as well as our ideas. |