Asceticism and the hierarchy of engagement
Abolishing hierarchy - yo. You can’t say its a bad thing. But there is one kind of hierarchy I’m not keen to get rid of. That is the hierarchy of engagement. Put another way - "no work, no food".
So its just not on, in my opinion, for someone who has put no effort at all into a project to tell you that it must be run in such-and-such a way. That doesn’t mean they aren’t welcome to join, or aren’t welcome to give an opinion. But its that sense of entitlement that I don’t care for.
An open collective doesn’t mean that its open for anyone to come and direct. It means openness of engagement, and freedom to work to your own rules within the collective, so long as it works.
I do not enjoy it when someone tells me that to do my own thing, I must first do their thing. Or when I make something wonderful, and all I get are criticisms from people who could have contributed, but didn’t. Or when someone says "Oh, we should all do this", gets people excited about something not completely on track, and then quietly issues the disclaimer that they can’t possibly put any work in… meanwhile, we needed them to lead the way a bit because it was their idea that interested everyone.
Gah!
I think equality is a myth, and the longer we persist in that myth, the longer we deny ourselves any possibility of equity.
For now, though, no work, no food. I don’t need another boss, especially not an anarchist boss.


Agreed: we can still be genuinely against hierarchy and include this proviso.
Comment by Richard Adams-Blackburn — May 6, 2007 @ 12:32 pm