If we really want widely shared support for co-ops (farmers know these), community (small and medium towns get it), and consensus (used by juries), then why waste time trying to redefine most everyone’s understanding of anarchist to fit some obscure and alienating academic definition? Why not move a majority of people toward a shared end goal, rather than a tiny minority that change nothing because anarchists are so easily dismissed by the media? Why not start with our churches replacing the force of majority rules with the equality of shared power that simply requires careful listening to each other, since Jesus already said king and slave are equal, eventually dethroning nepotistic monarchy for republics?
When enough people get used to regularly using consensus, then pressure builds on government leaders to share more power with main st. middle and working class, and end winner-take-all (exclude everyone else, but billionaires). Supermajority votes and shared executive power with multiple political parties would better represent everyone (esp. minorities and women) proportional to votes earned, so Donald, Hillary, greens, libertarians and others would have shared power in 2017, requiring unanimous agreement to start a war or launch the nukes, rather than unilateral action. Not perfect consensus, but a great next step. The Swiss already proved shared executive power works.
Promoting cooperative community consensus will gain far broader support than divisive and extreme words like anarchy, which sounds like chaos to normal working people.
That's personally what I hear Avery pointing us towards today. And I wonder what we might allow ourselves to learn from anarchists about democratic process and consensus and building strong relationships if we weren't reactive about what we've been told certain labels mean.
If we really want widely shared support for co-ops (farmers know these), community (small and medium towns get it), and consensus (used by juries), then why waste time trying to redefine most everyone’s understanding of anarchist to fit some obscure and alienating academic definition? Why not move a majority of people toward a shared end goal, rather than a tiny minority that change nothing because anarchists are so easily dismissed by the media? Why not start with our churches replacing the force of majority rules with the equality of shared power that simply requires careful listening to each other, since Jesus already said king and slave are equal, eventually dethroning nepotistic monarchy for republics?
When enough people get used to regularly using consensus, then pressure builds on government leaders to share more power with main st. middle and working class, and end winner-take-all (exclude everyone else, but billionaires). Supermajority votes and shared executive power with multiple political parties would better represent everyone (esp. minorities and women) proportional to votes earned, so Donald, Hillary, greens, libertarians and others would have shared power in 2017, requiring unanimous agreement to start a war or launch the nukes, rather than unilateral action. Not perfect consensus, but a great next step. The Swiss already proved shared executive power works.
Promoting cooperative community consensus will gain far broader support than divisive and extreme words like anarchy, which sounds like chaos to normal working people.
That's personally what I hear Avery pointing us towards today. And I wonder what we might allow ourselves to learn from anarchists about democratic process and consensus and building strong relationships if we weren't reactive about what we've been told certain labels mean.