Problem is, I think that the issues are fairly complex, and it doesn't appear that there is common agreement on what these issue actually are; a matter complicated by the fact that there are, either explicitly or implicitly, different definitions of key terms being employed. This leads, inevitably, to misunderstandings, and I think productive conversation relies upon there being, at the very least, acceptance of common definitions. Only from this point can disagreements be -- again, at the very least -- clarified. I also think that context, especially historical context, is important, and I don't think that the situation of anarchists in, for example, the UK, is analogous to that of anarchists in Australia, or Aotearoa/New Zealand. That is, there are political concerns for anarchists in Australia and Aoteraoa/New Zealand that do not confront anarchists elsewhere, including those in the heart of the former British Empire.
Oh yeah.
I'm still gonna post a reply.
Like, next week.
Maybe.
Problem is, I think that the issues are fairly complex, and it doesn't appear that there is common agreement on what these issue actually are; a matter complicated by the fact that there are, either explicitly or implicitly, different definitions of key terms being employed. This leads, inevitably, to misunderstandings, and I think productive conversation relies upon there being, at the very least, acceptance of common definitions. Only from this point can disagreements be -- again, at the very least -- clarified. I also think that context, especially historical context, is important, and I don't think that the situation of anarchists in, for example, the UK, is analogous to that of anarchists in Australia, or Aotearoa/New Zealand. That is, there are political concerns for anarchists in Australia and Aoteraoa/New Zealand that do not confront anarchists elsewhere, including those in the heart of the former British Empire.
But more on all that later.