Disabilities≢disorders.
Explain to me how can I empower people with paraplegia, comatose, dys/agraphia, dys/apraxia, amputation, aphasia, dysarthria, agnosia, etc…
Autism is absolutely a disability by any reasonable definition of disability. (ASAN is autistic self-advocacy, i.e. these are autistic people speaking about our lived experience.)
Explain to me how can I empower people with paraplegia, comatose, dys/agraphia, dys/apraxia, amputation, aphasia, dysarthria, agnosia, etc.
We would have to ask them (or for the comatose person, whomever is responsible for their medical decisions) for what they need to be included in the community, and then act on it. In general, we can apply the same anarchist principles of freedom, horizontalness, non-domination, continuous consent, dignity, and inclusivity to our projects.
Like I’m not saying to never look out for anyone ever. Of course, we sometimes do need to stand up for people to defend them when they’re down. I’m pushing back against vanguardism, the Leninist institutionalization of professional “revolution” that never seems to morph into communism as promised.
Leninist institutionalization of professional “revolution” that never seems to morph into communism as promised
Nurses and doctors are institutionalized professionals vanguarding people to morph into better healthier versions of what you couldn’t do alone.
If you have someone you can rely on, better yet, someone you use as support, you have a vanguard. Realizing how vanguarding is how we grow as mammals, is realizing some institutions are more corrupt than other hierarchical mammals.
I try to lean in empowerment and enabling you to do what you wish.
Not strip you off your desires, needs, and wishes.
The problem with vanguardism isn’t that there are people who protect/stand up for others, it’s that it inevitably institutionalizes those people into positions of power over those others. Nurses, caregivers, etc. aren’t “supposed” to have power over their patients, but they very often do. Humans are already good at protecting and supporting each other–no need to risk creating a power differential by forming a designated vanguard to rigidify it.
I feel like there’s a disagreement on the definition of vanguardism. I didn’t know it exactly, so i looked it up on Wikipedia and AnarWiki, and i get from those that a key element of the “strict” (leninist) definition is that it applies to a whole society rather than individual cases, and that it requires a minority of educated people to guide a mass of uneducated people, implying that the uneducated masses can take no part in it.
What you describe as one on one relations would seem to fall more under general “solidarity” than vanguardism to my eyes.
Also, vanguardism is by this definition not horizontal, neither consensual.
Feel free to correct my uneducated ass, but with the knowledge i have, it seems that you are using a much wider definition of vanguardism than the original one.
Disabilities≢disorders.
Explain to me how can I empower people with paraplegia, comatose, dys/agraphia, dys/apraxia, amputation, aphasia, dysarthria, agnosia, etc…
Autism is absolutely a disability by any reasonable definition of disability. (ASAN is autistic self-advocacy, i.e. these are autistic people speaking about our lived experience.)
We would have to ask them (or for the comatose person, whomever is responsible for their medical decisions) for what they need to be included in the community, and then act on it. In general, we can apply the same anarchist principles of freedom, horizontalness, non-domination, continuous consent, dignity, and inclusivity to our projects.
Like I’m not saying to never look out for anyone ever. Of course, we sometimes do need to stand up for people to defend them when they’re down. I’m pushing back against vanguardism, the Leninist institutionalization of professional “revolution” that never seems to morph into communism as promised.
that is a vanguard.
Vanguardism.
Nurses and doctors are institutionalized professionals vanguarding people to morph into better healthier versions of what you couldn’t do alone.
If you have someone you can rely on, better yet, someone you use as support, you have a vanguard. Realizing how vanguarding is how we grow as mammals, is realizing some institutions are more corrupt than other hierarchical mammals.
I try to lean in empowerment and enabling you to do what you wish.
Not strip you off your desires, needs, and wishes.
The problem with vanguardism isn’t that there are people who protect/stand up for others, it’s that it inevitably institutionalizes those people into positions of power over those others. Nurses, caregivers, etc. aren’t “supposed” to have power over their patients, but they very often do. Humans are already good at protecting and supporting each other–no need to risk creating a power differential by forming a designated vanguard to rigidify it.
I feel like there’s a disagreement on the definition of vanguardism. I didn’t know it exactly, so i looked it up on Wikipedia and AnarWiki, and i get from those that a key element of the “strict” (leninist) definition is that it applies to a whole society rather than individual cases, and that it requires a minority of educated people to guide a mass of uneducated people, implying that the uneducated masses can take no part in it.
What you describe as one on one relations would seem to fall more under general “solidarity” than vanguardism to my eyes.
Also, vanguardism is by this definition not horizontal, neither consensual.
Feel free to correct my uneducated ass, but with the knowledge i have, it seems that you are using a much wider definition of vanguardism than the original one.