Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 09:01:46 -0800 (PST) From: "J.M. Adams" <ringfingers-AT-yahoo.com> Subject: [postanarchism] Re: disassociation and postanarchism Sasha, I 'totally' agree that consensus does not have to come from the basis of Enlightenment assumptions about human nature but in practice it usually does because it is generally assumed by those who promote as though it were a holy sacrament that people will tend toward agreement without coercion and that if there is no clearly visible repressive structure of power that somehow power is not at play. But anyone who has been involved in an anarchist project involving more than say, three people, knows quite well that more often than not the most knowledgeable, the oldest, the loudest, the most talkative, the most time-endowed, etc. end up being the ones whose ideas get implemented under the consensus model. This is what is wrong with consensus politics being reduced to an expression of power, that it becomes little different for those who not as knowledgeable, who are younger, quieter, less talkative and less time-endowed than does the experience of any other form of alienated power that they are exposed to on a regular basis (which is precisely what it is in such cases). How is Lyotard right wing, he was a member of Socialism or Barbarism, participated in the May '68 uprising and his politics seems pretty clearly extreme left from what I can tell (also keep in mind that this is me quoting Tadzio Mueller, not my own writing)? I agree that privileging heterogeneity over homogeneity is not always ideal but it depends on how you look at it. For instance I think internally to any group that is based upon voluntary association it is fine to have a level of homogeneity, especially small affinity groups. But the whole point of that from my perspective is to preserve the possibility of heterogeneity on a larger scale, such that, zooming out, we have a world of millions of affinity groups each with possibly entirely different perspectives. So long as none of these groups are controlling any other groups or forcing their own members to stay within, I dont see the problem with this - this is an example of the kind of 'rules' I would consider to be okay (it could also be thought of as a general understanding or a norm). Within an affinity group I certainly do think there is such a thing as consensus, when it is within a very small group. But when it gets to be 30 people, much less 300 people as with this email list I really doubt whether there is ever a true consensus that is not based on unacknowledged coercion of some form or another. In regard to postanarchism versus anarchism I agree I am getting tired of the label "post" as it implies a linear forward-backward view of the history of ideas that reproduces much of thatwhich "post"structuralists are critiquing in the first place. However I disagree that classical anarchism has given us much insight into questions of these sorts, other than DePuydt's 1869 essay on "panarchy" which I have wholeheartedly endorsed and posted here in the past. I do think some genuinely original ideas have popped up in the past half century and wouldn't want to ignore that fact. Jason ===="“Marx says, revolutions are the locomotives of world history. But perhaps it is really totally different. Perhaps revolutions are the grasp by the human race traveling in this train for the emergency brake.” - Walter Benjamin __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005