Terribly sorry to do this but, you got me thinking about stuff I’d forgotten and… >!^(I lost the game)!<

DUHHHHH

Edit: oh I see, thanks

surprising

As a therapist with ADHD and lots of clients with ADHD, this is not a surprise to me at all, and I can’t imagine it’s a surprise to anyone else in the field (that would be surprising)

for some reason

My concern is power’s tendency to corrupt though

That’s fair, I used that term loosely. I guess I meant ‘becoming a new oppressive force, simply replacing the previous one (the state)’

I think it’s similar to the relationship between deontological vs consequentialist ethics.

It’s like I view the political/organizational aspects as a ‘necessary evil’ of sorts- something I refuse to participate in on principle, but want to be okay with happening around me.

Like how MLK was able to be the pacifist front of the civil rights movement while the black panthers filled the necessary militant role. (Huge simplification, I know, but still. Also backwards kind of in this scenario- I’d be working with the BPP).

I want the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people, but I don’t want to feel like I’m sacrificing my values to get there.

So if the language around it is adjusted, I can get on board with filling my role. But the moment I feel like I have a superior- I’m out.

Edit: also, the thing I said here

That’s helpful, thanks!

I see! Great explanation, thanks

That’s fair. Though “more concentration of power <-> less concentration of power” seems like an appropriate continuum to me when discussing theory, which is how I interpret that axis. Am I wrong on that?

Thanks for sharing! It’s an interesting and relevant thought.

I would argue that changing the language though does, in a way, change the thing itself. By adjusting our language, it shifts our perspective, which affects our thoughts and behaviors. Like replacing “mankind” with “humankind” etc.

If we want to ensure the vanguard don’t end up replacing the state, it seems like we ought not place them on a pedestal with our language

I think having defined roles, some of which are educators/motivators/organizers/representatives, seems like common sense. You need those people for success. But putting those roles on a pedestal and giving them a fancy name and calling them “advanced” seems unnecessary and problematic to me

No, I just meant that reaching/uniting with anarchists might be improved by tweaks to the language used to describe things. My problem with Marxism is the (relative) hierarchy

I know the political compass is flawed but, to illustrate:

Maybe I should’ve said “less libertarian” rather than “more authoritarian”?

The underlying theory seems sound to me- almost common sense tbh. I just think it could benefit from being reframed as simply a role, no more important/special than any other. E.g.: vanguards are the educators, motivators, organizers, representatives, etc.

I’m not saying Marxism is auth. If we had to place it all on a continuum though, it’s certainly more authoritarian than anarchism. I’m not trying to say that that adjective is at all a good descriptor outside of this context though

Well I was thinking just deleting comments off your own posts. People would probably be less likely to waste their time being nasty. I agree it isn’t worth the drawbacks though when you can just block- my block list is over 200 lol

Tbh I think that’s the kind of thing that turned me away from Marxism

I wouldn’t say I’m hostile to it- I’m quite fond of Marx. I think it comes more from being a social worker than an anarchist. it just sounded elitist to me, and I imagine it would feel that way to anyone who isn’t themselves one of the “advanced”

Yes, I think “experienced” is a much better word!

Oh for sure, I just meant it acted as my pipeline away from authoritarian communism. Basically Marx got me to the point of “oh, state control shouldn’t be the end goal” and then I just took that one step further

I figured it was just an expression, thanks for the info! I’m aware of their opinion lol