I think with solidarity, someone wouldn't feel as free to disagree. They would have to compromise or grumble and go along. Or they would have to be removed or remove themselves. Or maybe I'm confusing solidarity with consensus. Consensus would be nice but it's a lot of work. With democracy, though the majority rules (which is a problem, of course, for those not in the majority) they will be incessantly yapped at by the minority. Which is more important? Their importance is overrated.
I get solidarity confused with loyalty. Consensus I know a lot about as a Quaker(ish) person who used to work at a Quaker(ish) school. Democracy is pretty cool. I hate it when I lose, though. Then there is the pouting to which all around me must be subjected. So that's not so pleasant. But if solidarity is the same as loyalty, then I vote for that one, because I am one loyal mofo once I grow to like someone.
I put it up there, without any context, in order to get you all thinking. It stems from an article I'd just read about the battle of Trafalgar and how the different fleets involved (British, french and Spanish) reflected the societies that they drew their men from. The Spanish were steeped in arch catholic deference, the French were all socialistic and fraternal whilst the British were a bit formal yet cohesive, did what they were told at the time but were willing to raise questions later. I was wondering how this relates to the modern world and our daily lives. Especially when we are faced with difficulties. I think of the erosion of discussion and dissent fostered by politicians desperate to get a new policy or appointment. This goes back donkey's years, nothing new in it, just something to think about. Just a thought, thanks for the feedback.
5 comments:
Solidocracy?
I think with solidarity, someone wouldn't feel as free to disagree. They would have to compromise or grumble and go along. Or they would have to be removed or remove themselves. Or maybe I'm confusing solidarity with consensus. Consensus would be nice but it's a lot of work.
With democracy, though the majority rules (which is a problem, of course, for those not in the majority) they will be incessantly yapped at by the minority.
Which is more important? Their importance is overrated.
I get solidarity confused with loyalty. Consensus I know a lot about as a Quaker(ish) person who used to work at a Quaker(ish) school. Democracy is pretty cool. I hate it when I lose, though. Then there is the pouting to which all around me must be subjected. So that's not so pleasant. But if solidarity is the same as loyalty, then I vote for that one, because I am one loyal mofo once I grow to like someone.
I put it up there, without any context, in order to get you all thinking. It stems from an article I'd just read about the battle of Trafalgar and how the different fleets involved (British, french and Spanish) reflected the societies that they drew their men from. The Spanish were steeped in arch catholic deference, the French were all socialistic and fraternal whilst the British were a bit formal yet cohesive, did what they were told at the time but were willing to raise questions later.
I was wondering how this relates to the modern world and our daily lives. Especially when we are faced with difficulties. I think of the erosion of discussion and dissent fostered by politicians desperate to get a new policy or appointment. This goes back donkey's years, nothing new in it, just something to think about.
Just a thought, thanks for the feedback.
I agree with Debbie- you cannot control incontinence with either solidarity or democracy.
Post a Comment