Can we talk about female violence? I need to get my response straight

Right, sorry to dally on this, have been tres busy in RL

So, I'd have to say I'm not really sure about the difference in time it takes to get things organised and decided in anarchist meetings. My sense is that it is quicker but I think that is related to the way that the actual experience of anarchist meetings is they are not soul crushing exercises in putting up with the endless pontifications of some entitled fuckwit. I'm sure you know the type Because when someone is speaking during one, you are during that speech making an indication of your response to it, there are agreed signals that you use (a hand nod for consensus, for example) and if you need to respond to something directly, you have a special hand signal for that, and if you have a question, you have a hand signal for that, and if you have further information, etc etc. In this sense, the discussion becomes one in which you participate all the time.

This means you don't have to go back and vote on shit that's already clearly in consensus, and the person facilitating, which is quite a skill btw, is organising the responses for efficiency and clarity. It's pretty efficient, but it might also be that time doesn't feel like it's standing still while you are still remembering that you must respond to x point made ten minutes ago, and also you want to say something about this... etc etc. Then people proposing solutions will be like, so I'm going to write this blogpost and say x on it, anyone wanting to collaborate, and someone else will say, we still need to do something about the issue y raised, and someone will offer a solution, and others interested in that action will usually say they will join in that, etc. People form themselves into teams around actions and decisions those teams take are made transparent, with the idea that if you have something to say about a decision you'll go and work with the team in order to get whatever it is you are raising met.

You've got to remember that the whole ethos of such a space is that if you see something needs doing you just do it or you raise it to get it done. You don't have to have permission to join teams or groups doing specific actions and there is real care taken when a certain action is not fully supported by everyone that people are allowed to distance themselves from actions etc.

Do you know those threads on MN when someone needs to formulate a response to a toxic relation, or a difficult work situation etc, and like a million posters come in and work on it - they nearly always end in a really simple, clear and healthy response from the OP where she's untangled her shit and is really clear about what she is or is not saying? It's a bit like that, but quicker and less placemarky.

Sorry Outself I lost this thread today. Thats really interesting. Thank you. It's piqued my curiosity about anarchism.

Can I ask do you find it takes longer to make a decision because it's more collaborative?

I loved the relationships in the Utopia in Woman on the Edge, but I read it in my twenties in the middle of a horrid one. Perhaps I want to go back to it...

You don't have to agree a position, but you agree on what actions you'll participate in or support and have autonomy to take actions yourself

The basic structure of public discourse is totally changed from I speak, you argue, the most verbose or forceful argument wins to

I raise, you raise, he raises, she raises, we have xyz needs to meet around this issue, what solution for x, what solution for y, what solution for z

consensual decision making

the whole way you run and chair meetings totally changes, it doesn't go, one speaker, answer, lots of hands go up for lots of responses... there are structures around how things are answered and throughout the meeting everyone is communicating their response through agreed signals indicating consensus, dissensus, problem, etc.

Ha ha ha, I'm gutted, obviously. Being told off for not being practical by someone who proposes

simply changing the nature of humans

and

we could develop a human hive-mind

Anarchist communities and organisations work and function now, you just fancy yourself Picard to the borg queen or something.

ignorant and over-privileged compatriots

From an American, surely the most problematically privileged people on the earth? In a country with the lowest general level of foreign policy awareness in the free world? ODFOD

I think your theoretical resistance to it is because you just can't imagine how consensual decision making takes place I find that really interesting. I think a lot of people have issues making that leap (me included). I think that's why imaginary matriarchal societies that could perhaps take place in the future are always predicted to be as bad as patriarchal societies. Because we can't see beyond the hierarchies currently in existence.

Woman on the edge of time gave a good example of consensual decision making in the 'Utopia'. It really got me thinking anyway.

Many feminist organisational structures are anti-hierarchical and non-violent, find yourself a feminist community and look at their organisational and procedural values. Anarchist all the way

ha ha, you've never been involved with an actual political movement then mont, just stuck on the computer? Contemporary anarchy in the UK arises out of practices and not theories, it is eminently practical and solution based.

Mein Kampf on the other hand is pure ideology, it's hardly a manifesto.

I'm not going to do your fucking homework for you

do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading

Better to read Mein Kampf - at least that has more practical virtue than non-solutions to problems which they pretend do not exist.

think about that then imagine... no one was in charge

how does democracy function?

Anarchism is trash

Factually incorrect as well as metaphorically lame

do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading,do some more reading

So once again you hand-wave the central question.

Anarchism is trash.

do some more reading,do some more reading

some of the transient protest communities have been run anarchically

Which is about your lack of imagination really.

I think your theoretical resistance to it is because you just can't imagine how consensual decision making takes place

"Mouffe's description of radical democracy can only function"

And how exactly does it function?

anarchism merely hand-waves the problem of discord

No, do some more reading, anarchism specifically is about engaged consent. Mouffe describes it as radical democracy. It functions specifically through seeking consent rather than participation and has to engage areas of disagreement in order to realise that consent. Mouffe's description of radical democracy can only function in the context of a plurality of competing perspectives.

I became an anarchist after joining some of the transient protest communities that have been run anarchically. Really fucking amazing high quality informed engagement, no one is in charge, some fucking amazingly effective meetings even around contentious issues, especially around the stuff you can't agree on, there is nothing like anarchy to get a number of positive and realistic solutions in areas of massive disagreement. So I think your theoretical resistance to it is because you just can't imagine how consensual decision making takes place. Which is about your lack of imagination really.

I apologize to whomever perceives that I called them a pickled-goose thief.

In fact, the thief is the farmer Horion.

Oh, excellent, you've crossed the line into personal attack, Mont.