Submitted by Fool in Anarchism (edited )

Written in response to another piece, I thought this was a nice and to the point critique of "democracy" as anarchism.

If anarchism is to not blur out and mean anything and everything it must ultimately mean something in specific. We may not be able to fully reach such an ideal or even fully grasp its consequences, and we can be generous in our recognition of those in orbit of it, if convinced they’re orbiting a slightly different point, but that doesn’t mean we can’t speak of degrees of proximity or point out that someone’s motion is taking them around a different concept altogether.



You must log in or register to comment.

subrosa wrote

That's Gillis, not Massimino. His essays were among the better in this democracy debate / 'mutual exchange symposium'.


Fool OP wrote

I guess I just saw the name at the bottom, I feel a bit dirty now, considering it was Gillis... but I'm a fan of separating ideas from the author.