#host primacy

[vagabond-sun]

[this was originally posted on pillowfort - go check it out there!]

i finally bought the crisses' united front series, because i've referenced the free version on the website so much that i felt like i owed it to 'em, and i was curious what was expanded upon. i pushed through the assumptions of traumagenesis in the intro because that's what you do when you're plural and you know what resources are like, but then i got to this part almost immediately after:

Internal anarchy is not terribly different from external anarchy. It involves a break-down of culture, control, communication and resource distribution. Use the following list to see how many “Anarchy Factors” you are experiencing as a group.

:^)

i don't think the crisses would be anti-actual-anarchy, considering they're so psych-critical, it's just ironic. because a lot of the stuff they write on building internal community runs very similar to the kind of community building talked about by, you know, anarchists.

...is there a niche out there for empowered multiplicity stuff drawing from an explicitly anarchist perspective?

edit: ah okay never mind, it continues :^) again in ways that make me think they've just been told by Society what anarchy 'really' means but. more quotes under the cut

These statements were compiled by looking at what defines ananarchy in Human Space (the external world) — how societies degrade and fall apart, and the signs that things are getting worse, that there will be either a revolution or rebellion. We just changed the wordings of relationships, or what the resources are based onbeing a plural rather than a governemnt or organization. These issues exist in every layer of society. And there’s an implied choice. Either the current decaying disorder is overthrown through a more violent method, or an alternative contingent rises in power through popular support and steps into power in a more peaceful way, basically a peaceful coup. [...] We want everyone to be on board and take the peaceful route.

now, i agree with taking the peaceful route when it comes to building internal community in plural systems. but that seems like, maybe, a poorly concieved analogy.

also, the most analogous situation is the one i haven't seen them touch on much at all - that of the host holding onto the power and dehumanizing / denying the personhood of their headmates. and that's a thing that happens like, a lot. food for thought.

makes me think that some plural anarchist voices are even more necessary, honestly.