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.
“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 just put it all together for me. Thank you for the soundbite-sized explanation of my approach. I’m also finding my feet, and imo there is definitely a push-pull to anarchism - it’s always changing as we meet and work with others who practice it (or don’t).
I feel like there’s an enormous and continuous amount of self-reflection & refinement that is necessary when you’re truly committed to letting people live freely.
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?
I think it’s critical to question why we’ve been taught to approach everything being framed as better at a larger scale- it’s rooted in basic ideas driving colonialism and state building projects. Expansion, conquering, amassing land/ power/ wealth, proliferation, endless accumulation... etc etc. Large scale anything by design is only achievable thru oppression, suppression & repression. So yes large scale programs are not just not in alignment with anarchy, they are unnecessary. We can only care for each other & provide for each other equitably if we intimately know each other- I.e. share the same ecological context to where we have to work together to grow food, feed each other, clothe each other, protect each other, provide medicine for each other etc. Justice is about having direct relationships with the people we have responsibility towards- a dynamic that allows for real accountability. So anarchy as some large scale political project is an oxymoron. An empire is large. A hierarchical nation state homogenizing millions of diverse communities & controlling them is large. Corporations are large. Large scale means it is centralized decision making where the people on top making decisions don’t know yet control the lives of the majority. Most importantly, any system we create that is led by communities and rooted in community will be uniquely adapted to the very specific context of said community which changes drastically when you’re talking about a whole new ecosystem where your way of life from food practices to culture to land-based practices in general are very different. There is no reason we need large scale anything. Our ecosystems are small and very distinct and different as they co-exist on this planet we collectively call home. The largest scale of human endeavors have brought about death, destruction & exploitation of all beings (from human to non-human & the land as a whole) so maybe a shift away from such large scale exploits & endeavors is best and many examples of equitable societies has shown this time and time again.
I recommend reading “The Solutions are Already Here” by Peter Gelderloos but also anything that covers foundations of basic anarchy covers these points- we’re fundamentally opposed to large scale establishments of any form (which are by design hierarchical). I also didn’t learn this from books but from growing up in different communities around the world understanding how damaging empires are in all forms (from nation states to large scale organizations). I learned this from community members because it was apparent large scale endeavors require suppression of autonomy & necessitate coercion, control & exploitation. I think sitting with this & thinking about it more intentionally in community will lead you to those answers (books are great but there are other routes to embodying these things so whatever works for you).
I’ll also say that there’s no reason that creativity & innovation which is most beneficial to caring for each other/ our ecosystems cannot be actualized on a local scale-- we’re just more familiar with large scale models (which haven’t actually benefited us) because that’s the dominant model colonialism/ capitalism have forcefully enforced around the world recently. However, countless examples of successful and sustainable smaller, local, community scale innovation across history have shown it can be done. So it might be what’s thrust in our faces (like other large scale systems from police forces to militaries to prisons) but that’s most definitely not the only way or best way to do it/ or that has been done before.
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 disagree that we will cause oppression one way or the other just cause there’s a lot of people on this planet. This planet has abundant resources to support all of us when it’s not being extracted from for profit. How exactly does scaling back and focusing on our local communities mean we will “have to” cause the death of others? By not doing large scale things I mean abolishing empires & nation states, not advocating for genocide & annihilation of people to reduce the human population. Those are really fatalistic, worst possible assumptions to make given that people have existed for eons outside the scope of empires and nation states. Those assumptions about “scaling down means death” “8 billion inevitably means well oppress each other” are based on certain really binary, worst assumptions about human nature which would help for you to really interrogate and think about why you’re making those leaps.
I also think understanding the foundations of anarchism may help clarify your points. Creating a large scale empire requires hierarchies, suppression, oppression, conquest & domination. Small scale means only focusing on the community that we are a part of (without a hierarchical nation state or government ruling over us) where we are in direct relationships with people, understand our local ecological/ cultural context & can care for each other Thru intimate direct democracy.
And no I’m not calling for unity. This isn’t just about “we can get along despite our differences”. Sometimes we can’t. Sometimes we have fundamental differences & we shouldn’t force any sort of unity or collaboration. People can live & let live. And I can’t be “United” in practice with people living in a fully different context, in a different ecosystem, in a community whose dynamics I don’t understand. Communities who aren’t intimately connected or united can still co-exist alongside each other & respect each other’s sovereignty/ autonomy.
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.
“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 just put it all together for me. Thank you for the soundbite-sized explanation of my approach. I’m also finding my feet, and imo there is definitely a push-pull to anarchism - it’s always changing as we meet and work with others who practice it (or don’t).
I feel like there’s an enormous and continuous amount of self-reflection & refinement that is necessary when you’re truly committed to letting people live freely.
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?
I think it’s critical to question why we’ve been taught to approach everything being framed as better at a larger scale- it’s rooted in basic ideas driving colonialism and state building projects. Expansion, conquering, amassing land/ power/ wealth, proliferation, endless accumulation... etc etc. Large scale anything by design is only achievable thru oppression, suppression & repression. So yes large scale programs are not just not in alignment with anarchy, they are unnecessary. We can only care for each other & provide for each other equitably if we intimately know each other- I.e. share the same ecological context to where we have to work together to grow food, feed each other, clothe each other, protect each other, provide medicine for each other etc. Justice is about having direct relationships with the people we have responsibility towards- a dynamic that allows for real accountability. So anarchy as some large scale political project is an oxymoron. An empire is large. A hierarchical nation state homogenizing millions of diverse communities & controlling them is large. Corporations are large. Large scale means it is centralized decision making where the people on top making decisions don’t know yet control the lives of the majority. Most importantly, any system we create that is led by communities and rooted in community will be uniquely adapted to the very specific context of said community which changes drastically when you’re talking about a whole new ecosystem where your way of life from food practices to culture to land-based practices in general are very different. There is no reason we need large scale anything. Our ecosystems are small and very distinct and different as they co-exist on this planet we collectively call home. The largest scale of human endeavors have brought about death, destruction & exploitation of all beings (from human to non-human & the land as a whole) so maybe a shift away from such large scale exploits & endeavors is best and many examples of equitable societies has shown this time and time again.
I recommend reading “The Solutions are Already Here” by Peter Gelderloos but also anything that covers foundations of basic anarchy covers these points- we’re fundamentally opposed to large scale establishments of any form (which are by design hierarchical). I also didn’t learn this from books but from growing up in different communities around the world understanding how damaging empires are in all forms (from nation states to large scale organizations). I learned this from community members because it was apparent large scale endeavors require suppression of autonomy & necessitate coercion, control & exploitation. I think sitting with this & thinking about it more intentionally in community will lead you to those answers (books are great but there are other routes to embodying these things so whatever works for you).
I’ll also say that there’s no reason that creativity & innovation which is most beneficial to caring for each other/ our ecosystems cannot be actualized on a local scale-- we’re just more familiar with large scale models (which haven’t actually benefited us) because that’s the dominant model colonialism/ capitalism have forcefully enforced around the world recently. However, countless examples of successful and sustainable smaller, local, community scale innovation across history have shown it can be done. So it might be what’s thrust in our faces (like other large scale systems from police forces to militaries to prisons) but that’s most definitely not the only way or best way to do it/ or that has been done before.
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?
I disagree that we will cause oppression one way or the other just cause there’s a lot of people on this planet. This planet has abundant resources to support all of us when it’s not being extracted from for profit. How exactly does scaling back and focusing on our local communities mean we will “have to” cause the death of others? By not doing large scale things I mean abolishing empires & nation states, not advocating for genocide & annihilation of people to reduce the human population. Those are really fatalistic, worst possible assumptions to make given that people have existed for eons outside the scope of empires and nation states. Those assumptions about “scaling down means death” “8 billion inevitably means well oppress each other” are based on certain really binary, worst assumptions about human nature which would help for you to really interrogate and think about why you’re making those leaps.
I also think understanding the foundations of anarchism may help clarify your points. Creating a large scale empire requires hierarchies, suppression, oppression, conquest & domination. Small scale means only focusing on the community that we are a part of (without a hierarchical nation state or government ruling over us) where we are in direct relationships with people, understand our local ecological/ cultural context & can care for each other Thru intimate direct democracy.
And no I’m not calling for unity. This isn’t just about “we can get along despite our differences”. Sometimes we can’t. Sometimes we have fundamental differences & we shouldn’t force any sort of unity or collaboration. People can live & let live. And I can’t be “United” in practice with people living in a fully different context, in a different ecosystem, in a community whose dynamics I don’t understand. Communities who aren’t intimately connected or united can still co-exist alongside each other & respect each other’s sovereignty/ autonomy.
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