subrosa wrote
Not much I could possibly dislike in that definition, except for that hint of anarchist society as a 'natural' or already existent state of things, with the institutions and systems of authority piled onto it unnaturally. If nothing else, traditionally, anarchists have often started from opposite accounts — hierarchical society as a natural order we'll have to overcome, with anarchic (perfected) relations piled onto it.
I might also question anarchism being any more rooted in the experience of everyday life than the dominant authoritarian trends of our society. Roughly the same concern.
Tequila_Wolf OP wrote
Interesting. I read in it that there is always both forces of hierarchy and anarchy in society - and that this is the natural and already-existent state of things, where at the moment the forces of hierarchy are dominant, but developing anarchy is always present or at least a latent possibility.
Majrelende wrote (edited )
I've heard, and seen much evidence for, the extreme flexibility of these natural states. Nothing seems really unnatural or natural--it is like flipping a coin, and one side is seen, but the other is still hidden, suppressed, pressed to a table, "like a seed beneath the snow". There still exist horizontal relations like friendship, and it will take a mountain of effort on the part of authority to stomp that out; and there is no way anarchy can destroy the part of us that makes domination and authority possible.
kinshavo wrote
Funny that I started writing before I saw your comment. Maybe I see the second paragraph as a wishful thinking from myself lol
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments