I really appreciate your writing. It’s both comprehensive and compassionate; a winning combination. I spend a lot of time thinking about beloved community, and you’ve articulated some points about difference/boundaries/conflict that I’ve similarly felt but struggled to say clearly.
I esp like the insistence at the end that, even tho we have strong convictions about these things and firmly believe them to be true, we aren’t telling people what to do. We’re stating clearly what *we* are doing, and giving others the option to be part of that or not.
And we’re stating clearly that we will oppose any encroachment on our freedom/autonomy/safety to do as we’ve said, which is not the same as actively opposing what others are doing.
This delicate balance is I think the dance of anarchy. And maybe it only seems delicate to me because I’m still unsure of my feet as I move through the steps.
I’m curious about how anarchy can operate at scale. Can you elaborate or point me to some writings on this? From this article it seems like you are saying that “it cannot.” So the scale of human endeavours would be no larger that that enabled by horizontal community-based organising on the order of 1000 people or so. Large-scale things like space programs, trans-continental railway systems, environmental protection agencies etc. simply would not exist, because it is impossible to organise human effort at larger scales without violating anarchist principles around concentration of power and hierarchies of some sort?
From what I can see, you are still calling for unity. But a unity that is not about 'letting things slide' .. because at the end of the day, when we do conflict resolution, the goal is to resolve conflict to come together, to grow more understanding, to learn something, to show empathy, etc.
I agree that anything large scale means oppression. By that definition, with nearly 8 billion humans, we will cause oppression one way or another. We are too large scale and scaling back means the death of many. How do we contend with that?
I really appreciate your writing. It’s both comprehensive and compassionate; a winning combination. I spend a lot of time thinking about beloved community, and you’ve articulated some points about difference/boundaries/conflict that I’ve similarly felt but struggled to say clearly.
I esp like the insistence at the end that, even tho we have strong convictions about these things and firmly believe them to be true, we aren’t telling people what to do. We’re stating clearly what *we* are doing, and giving others the option to be part of that or not.
And we’re stating clearly that we will oppose any encroachment on our freedom/autonomy/safety to do as we’ve said, which is not the same as actively opposing what others are doing.
This delicate balance is I think the dance of anarchy. And maybe it only seems delicate to me because I’m still unsure of my feet as I move through the steps.
I’m curious about how anarchy can operate at scale. Can you elaborate or point me to some writings on this? From this article it seems like you are saying that “it cannot.” So the scale of human endeavours would be no larger that that enabled by horizontal community-based organising on the order of 1000 people or so. Large-scale things like space programs, trans-continental railway systems, environmental protection agencies etc. simply would not exist, because it is impossible to organise human effort at larger scales without violating anarchist principles around concentration of power and hierarchies of some sort?
ALL OF THIS ❤️🔥🖤❤️🩹
Amazing as always
From what I can see, you are still calling for unity. But a unity that is not about 'letting things slide' .. because at the end of the day, when we do conflict resolution, the goal is to resolve conflict to come together, to grow more understanding, to learn something, to show empathy, etc.
I agree that anything large scale means oppression. By that definition, with nearly 8 billion humans, we will cause oppression one way or another. We are too large scale and scaling back means the death of many. How do we contend with that?
huge agree.
check out "skills for organizing in groups" here to see one way of actually enacting these very critical points:
https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/resources