You unreasonable extremist!
A person on 'arsebook' recently made the comment along the lines of it being inappopriate for me to mention the anarchist approach in a discussion about management styles and problems. And that how businesses are run has nothing to do with 'geo-political systems'.
That last point is a laughable one. Obviously incorrect. This fact that he think so is an interesting example of how people are cheated into blindness by capitalism (despite his long experience in the business world)...It's like saying umbrellas have nothing to do with the weather. The wider systematic aspect (weather/anarchism) is directly connected to the specific subject (umberallas/management). To discuss management types, styles, good and bad points is to consider ways in which we organise our workplaces, groups, councils, governments. The anarchist approach is one way, on the broad spectrum of political approaches, to consider ways in which we organise our workplaces, groups, councils, governments. Looks rather connected to me.
OF COURSE the two are strongly connected...
I was also accused of missing a chance to be reasonable in discussing the subject of management. Of instead applying my ‘extremism’ of looking at the issue from the point of view of the anarchist approach to organising society. This is a very silly and shallow point. It appears to take reasonable to mean ‘already thinks like me’. So if anyone has a different approach it must, inherently, be strange, mad, extreme. How simple life would be if that were true.
The reality of the situation though, the stone cold hard reality, is that people have different views. Therefore, in a democracy, we decide amongst them by how well they can put their case.
‘Let’s go on holiday to Italy, it’s warm and the wine is nice.’ says person A.
’Oh, i prefer, Norway, it has lovely clean air and the skying.’ replies person B
We put our case for the strength of our side and the weakness of the other views calmly, clearly, and ‘reasonably’. We do not say ‘Anyone who does not want to go on holiday to Italy is a mad extremist.’
The gentleman seemed to be saying that if I wanted to discuss the issues 'reasonably' then I should apply the approaches and wordings and views that THEY already think of as correct and normal. But that is like saying I should abandon my whole view of things, take on their view... and then we can really start to discuss it. It’s rather like in the war the Germans saying to the French ‘Ok, throw away all your guns, let us march through your lines, occupy Paris… and THEN we will talk!’ You expect your enemy to give up without a fight? To not defend their position with vigour? And if they dare to stand up for their own point of view on the issue, their own way of approaching it...then they are just being unreasonable?
Oh, lovely old conservative minded people... don't be silly.
A person on 'arsebook' recently made the comment along the lines of it being inappopriate for me to mention the anarchist approach in a discussion about management styles and problems. And that how businesses are run has nothing to do with 'geo-political systems'.
That last point is a laughable one. Obviously incorrect. This fact that he think so is an interesting example of how people are cheated into blindness by capitalism (despite his long experience in the business world)...It's like saying umbrellas have nothing to do with the weather. The wider systematic aspect (weather/anarchism) is directly connected to the specific subject (umberallas/management). To discuss management types, styles, good and bad points is to consider ways in which we organise our workplaces, groups, councils, governments. The anarchist approach is one way, on the broad spectrum of political approaches, to consider ways in which we organise our workplaces, groups, councils, governments. Looks rather connected to me.
OF COURSE the two are strongly connected...
I was also accused of missing a chance to be reasonable in discussing the subject of management. Of instead applying my ‘extremism’ of looking at the issue from the point of view of the anarchist approach to organising society. This is a very silly and shallow point. It appears to take reasonable to mean ‘already thinks like me’. So if anyone has a different approach it must, inherently, be strange, mad, extreme. How simple life would be if that were true.
The reality of the situation though, the stone cold hard reality, is that people have different views. Therefore, in a democracy, we decide amongst them by how well they can put their case.
‘Let’s go on holiday to Italy, it’s warm and the wine is nice.’ says person A.
’Oh, i prefer, Norway, it has lovely clean air and the skying.’ replies person B
We put our case for the strength of our side and the weakness of the other views calmly, clearly, and ‘reasonably’. We do not say ‘Anyone who does not want to go on holiday to Italy is a mad extremist.’
The gentleman seemed to be saying that if I wanted to discuss the issues 'reasonably' then I should apply the approaches and wordings and views that THEY already think of as correct and normal. But that is like saying I should abandon my whole view of things, take on their view... and then we can really start to discuss it. It’s rather like in the war the Germans saying to the French ‘Ok, throw away all your guns, let us march through your lines, occupy Paris… and THEN we will talk!’ You expect your enemy to give up without a fight? To not defend their position with vigour? And if they dare to stand up for their own point of view on the issue, their own way of approaching it...then they are just being unreasonable?
Oh, lovely old conservative minded people... don't be silly.