Gar wrote:
> I tend to think that government (socialist or otherwise) will be at
>least as repressive as it's population will tolerate, and that when
>under attack from outside, a population will tend to tolerate a great
>deal. In short revolutions under attack from a strong outside force will
>tend to be a great deal more repressive than needed for survival.
>
>I think this is one area where the anarchists have a great deal to
>offer. Revolution that is truly from below, truly under control of the
>majority from the beginning, might be able to both avoid the trap of
>needing to be repressive, and avoid the weakness of being easily
>overthrown a la Allende.
The problem with anarchism, as I understand it, is that its opposition to
the state (centralized authority & power) _per se_ implies an opposition to
democracy, since without a state to enforce the rules, you can't have
democracy except under utopian conditions. That's why I favor socialism
from below, which stresses the need for mass self-organization,
self-education, and self-democracy of the masses of working people (and
other oppressed group). While having a state preserves this kind of
grass-roots democracy, the existence of organized mass movement keeps the
state in line (which is why social democrats and Stalinists don't like mass
movements they can't control).
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
