It is an attempt at a crowdsourced alternative to An Anarchist FAQ, mainly aiming to eliminate any biases by having multiple people write this work.
It is an attempt at a crowdsourced alternative to An Anarchist FAQ, mainly aiming to eliminate any biases by having multiple people write this work.
It says “most anarchists are in favour of direct democracy” i.e. majoritarianism. We’re in favour of reaching consensus, not forcing the will of the majority on minorities. That’s Bookchin who insists we all obey the will of the majority.
Well. Consensus is great but especially in a world where forcing others is commonly taught from early age, at least qualified majority isnt worth completely throwing it out. It feels very harsh to delegitimize the work instead of just criticizing.
As an anarchist, I don’t think it’s harsh to throw out systems of domination. It’s basically my whole reason for being.
Would you agree that systems of domination are a central but not the only opponent of a worthy life?
I think of lack of education for example, taught helplessness as another.
As a practicing anarchist, I see people use domination to fill a void left by former dominating systems and others being held back by learned helplessness. This can lead to the project failing. I dont see how that makes sense. How do the existing anarchist groups you know do it? The ones i know start with consensus but are willing to change it if necessary.
A free society does not just exist from tomorrow but there is a process. This process involves people who have only ever known slavery.
I’m not the type of anarchist who believes there can ever be such a thing as a ‘free society’. I see anarchy as a constant fight against domination. I’m not an anarchist because I believe anarchy will create a perfect utopia, I’m an anarchist because when I see domination and oppression, it infuriates me into action. Here’s my ode to anarchy: https://raddle.me/wiki/what_anarchy_means
Consensus has to come with freedom of association. When people don’t agree on a course of action, they don’t need to work together on the project. They can go their separate ways and come back together later on a project where their interests and needs better align. More here: https://raddle.me/wiki/friendship
Accepting structures of domination with the reasoning that compromising our ethics is justified in the service of “a better tomorrow” is how you get the USSR. Ethical compromises don’t lead to freedom, they lead to tyranny. I don’t have it in me to accept forced obedience in the name of collectivity.
On the other hand, I’m all for adapting methods to fit each unique situation. But I won’t personally participate in methods that force conformity.
And thats the point. Everyone can have different opinions. I’m no type of anarchist at all. I’m just myself. I do believe in a world where everyone can be free and I’m willing to put effort into it.
I also dont care in general if we get the ussr back. It was the far superior system to today imo. But of course I would much prefer if we could do it from the bottom up like the many communes that exist today and have, historically.
yikes are we not on the same page or even in the same book…
And thats the attitude that keeps us from getting anywhere.
My goals are simple. Nobody starves, nobody goes homeless. Down the line i also dont want animals to be eaten either but thats absolutely nowhere as easy to get a majority on than the other two.
I think you and i differ somewhere on the breakline between social anarchists and individualist anarchists but not sure.