I should abandon Twitter, I know, but let's take a brief Twitter detour that I feel is relevant to the subject we just left behind in last month's series. There has been a lot of talk amongst and against leftists in the Discourse lately regarding two things I want to
nor is there even such a thing as a single “anarchist community”.
How large can an anarchist community be so the decision process maintains the libertarian proposal of social organization (direct involvement/participation, no representation, decision mostly by concensus unless critical in time and blocked by an insignificant minority).
I feel certain comments are creeping in the direction of violating rule #4, but I will nevertheless echo the observation previously given, that an “anarchist community” is less a concrete entity than it is an abstraction used to facilitate discussion, the same as other social structures, such as family, town, or firm.
Most people agree trivially that a society that produces insulin is vastly superior to one that produces no insulin. Given that the necessity of insulin production is not a locus of controversy, the only further points needing to be agreed are the ones relating to the organization and methods of production, and to the delegation of responsibility, just as is required in any society.
Most people agree trivially that a society that produces insulin is vastly superior to one that produces no insulin.
An anarchist that gives a shit about majority agreements, that is to impose on minority disagreeing?
vastrly superior society
There were those snakes that spoke of superior societies and inferior ones back in the 1930s, the Red Army did a number on them, good old CNT gave it one hell of a fight, but unfortunately some of the mud thrown around must have stuck to be reproduced a century later.
and to the delegation of responsibility, just as is required in any society.
you are making all that fuss about community, family, town, … only to pass this authoritarian construct labeled “society” under the table. Massive “social groups” require central authority and organization, communities don’t or in reverse the size of community is determined by the ability to decentralize decision and avoid hierarchy.
How large can an anarchist community be so the decision process maintains the libertarian proposal of social organization (direct involvement/participation, no representation, decision mostly by concensus unless critical in time and blocked by an insignificant minority).
I’d say pretty small.
I feel certain comments are creeping in the direction of violating rule #4, but I will nevertheless echo the observation previously given, that an “anarchist community” is less a concrete entity than it is an abstraction used to facilitate discussion, the same as other social structures, such as family, town, or firm.
Most people agree trivially that a society that produces insulin is vastly superior to one that produces no insulin. Given that the necessity of insulin production is not a locus of controversy, the only further points needing to be agreed are the ones relating to the organization and methods of production, and to the delegation of responsibility, just as is required in any society.
An anarchist that gives a shit about majority agreements, that is to impose on minority disagreeing?
There were those snakes that spoke of superior societies and inferior ones back in the 1930s, the Red Army did a number on them, good old CNT gave it one hell of a fight, but unfortunately some of the mud thrown around must have stuck to be reproduced a century later.
you are making all that fuss about community, family, town, … only to pass this authoritarian construct labeled “society” under the table. Massive “social groups” require central authority and organization, communities don’t or in reverse the size of community is determined by the ability to decentralize decision and avoid hierarchy.