gillis on small scale
i think this is huge.. and part of why we haven’t yet gotten to global equity (everyone getting a go everyday).. we don’t let go enough to get deep enough to get to the ginorm-small enough ness (aka: system/global ness)
and sense today we have the means to go to that scale (where there is no scale at which it does not apply).. we can’t not
graeber and big questions et al
intro’d via this tweet:
“Anarchism is an unraveling of the very fabric of power relations that bind almost every society on earth. And critically: there is no scale at which it does not apply.” – @rechelon
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/c4ssdotorg/status/1454762321197375488
links to 2015 article by william gillis
notes/quotes from article:
The bonds that oppress us are no less bonds if they are small-scale and responsive.
The damage we do each other at the small-scale, at the “human level”, is usually far more profound in suffering than the damage done by big tangled contexts and social organisms above and beyond our families, lovers, and friends. They intersect, they feedback off each other in interesting ways, and with bigger scale comes bigger risk, to be sure, but at the end of the day the narrative of small-scale against big-scale is utterly toothless against the roots of the horrors we face.
I and many others were originally attracted to anarchism not because we were looking to satiate some hunger for the participatory delusion / commodity known as “community”, but as a ray of absolute resistance against the fundamentally sociopathic and nihilistic social norms of our world. Against an omnipresent foul fog that burns our lungs and seeks to settle deep into our skin.
that deep – healing (roots of) et al
For us Anarchism has always first, foremost, and at root, presented itself as a sharp critique of this rampantly common and pedestrian perspective, this staunch belief in immediatism and the irrelevance or nonexistence of universals or solids of any form of truly persuasive arguments that might be found–this assumption of the uniform arbitrariness and futility of vigilant investigation beyond one’s momentary or happenstance motivations–that infests every abuser, every conman, every social capitalist, every creep, every rapist.
Our anarchism represents a break with this, it is the cry that an-archy is possible, even considerable, that we need not reassign the term like so much litter to denote merely diffuse, local and personal archies. That we need not embrace the orwellian framework in which anarchy is the same shit, only more locally responsive. It is the declaration that there is a substantive differentiation to be found between the ideologies or psychologies of constraint and those of richer, wider engagement, of more expansive identity and compassion. And that the latter is ultimately more attractive than the former. That we need not shy away from reality or lower our gaze in furtive dejection to our immediate trappings, to mere fleeting impressions of love and resistance, to aesthetics rather than anything of consequence
Such an anarchism is an unraveling of the very fabric of power relations that bind almost every society on earth. And critically: there is no scale at which it does not apply..t
huge need: no scale at which it does not apply
huge.. but for there to truly be ‘no scale at which it does not apply’.. we need a means to undo our hierarchical listening.. so we can legit hear/see all the scales.. at once.. otherwise.. as we keep showing.. we just keep perpetuating tragedy of the non common
That big showy tangles of power must also be dissolved is but a trivial ramification, it is no more representative of the anarchist break than any other shift or twist in the fabric of power relations. Nor can our break be characterized by a brief or local loosening of the weave. The break anarchism signifies is not with the particularities of the west, or of civilization, it goes far far deeper than that.
deeper than as if already free ness..
again.. because the dance won’t dance unless everyone is in sync
The narrative of opposition to “big-thinking” is at its core just a kind of smug pride in timidity, of ritualized fear and comfortable despair. “We have not won in a few scant iterations of history and this is proof that we will lose.” “Some people tried thinking and look at where that inevitably led.” It’s the instinctive recoil of the traumatized animal. A sense that “when the stakes go up we dare not rise to compete.” And at its core it swallows and preserves every nihilistic assumption at the core of our sociopathic society. One might be able to relate to the mewling slave repeating “might makes right” like a prayer of absolution, having internalized the masters’ intellectual laziness, but one should never join them.
Let us never forget that coffins are made “human sized”; our lives should be bigger than them.
yeah.. ginormously small
for that we need to org around legit needs – (no scale to which it doesn’t apply)
ie: a nother way
adding this to gillis on debt page:
[to me.. he’s showing lack of complexity in his math thinking.. ie: naming the colour; measuring things/liquids; et al.. deafens/blinds/deadens us.. so frustrating after his gillis on small scale ness]