This essay focuses on healthy discussion. Have you ever participated in an executive or board meeting when the conversation around the table became divisive or charged? Ever felt like you were watching a ping-pong match between two real enemies?
you will use for this paper are: 1. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon Read and write on the section entitled “philosophy” and on the section entitled “controversy”. (In your paper cite this as Wiki-Proudhon) 2. Mikhail Bakunin, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin Read and write on the section entitled “thought” and on the section entitled “criticism”. (In your paper cite this as Wiki-Bakunin) Rather than provide you with a series of “leading” questions, I am going to leave it up to you to decide how best to discuss the anarchist vision of each of these men.
However, make sure you have some healthy discussion in your paper on how each of these men viewed revolutionary change in society, especially with respect to the use, or non-use, of violence. There is a lot of material to work with in the two sources so be creative and original in how you present your ideas. Writing instructions for the assignment from the professor: You MUST use both sources of information and cite them often; You WILL NOT have direct quotes in your paper. You will paraphrase the material (IN YOUR OWN WORDS!) and then provide a citation after each paraphrased passage.
Have you ever participated in an executive or board meeting when the conversation around the table became divisive or charged? Ever felt like you were watching a ping-pong match between two real enemies? Rarely is anyone declared a winner in such situations, except perhaps the loudest speaker. And usually everyone comes away with a distinct feeling of frustration and exhaustion (again, except perhaps the loudest speaker).
Contrast that kind of meeting with one in which opinions are respected, or, better yet, encouraged and appreciated; the kind of meeting in which members build on previous statements instead of tearing them down; the kind of meeting that results in a very real sense of community, innovation and excitement? What was the mood when you left such a meeting? Wouldn’t you like all meetings to be more like the latter than the former?