Actual there are some answers to this that do not require utopian
assumptions about human nature. Basically, there are anarchists who
distinguish between "state" and 'polity'. So the commune up the stream
can't put up a nuclear power plant because it is part of a larger polity
that votes against allowing it to do so -- and enforces that decision.
You think this is semantic difference, and this kind of system is no
longer anarchist? Well I'd agree with you, but they think they are
anarchists. I think what they are actually advocating is a kind of
hyperdemocratic state -- with lots of guarantees that it remain
controlled from below. Not a bad thing in my opinion, whatever it is
called.
Jim Devine wrote:
>
> Macdonald writes:
> > > 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.
> >
> >It's amazing how little people actually know about anarchism (either the
> >theoretical or the currents in practice today) these days. Sorry, Jim- this
> >isn't a salvo at you, but in general I'm constantly stunned. I can only hope
> >these are genuine errors and not attempts to create straw men.
> >
> >Anarchist theory involves a set of rules, ones that are to be enforced
> >strictly-
> >but not a set of rulers. It will be no more legal- say the anarchists- under
> >anarchist planning to walk into a crowded room and yell "fire", for
> >example. The
> >anarchist will tell you that people properly emancipated would enforce such a
> >rule and not wait around for a security guard to do it.
>
> One reason why I'm not an expert on anarchism is that I always run into
> this kind of answer. I ask the question: "what happens if the
> anarcho-syndicalist commune across the river democratically decides to
> build a nuclear power plant (or to pollute the river)?" or if someone
> really does yell "fire" in a movie theater. The answer, of course, is that
> they wouldn't do it, since they're "properly emancipated." But I see that
> as assuming "utopian conditions." There's got to be a better answer to the
> free-rider problem than that people "wouldn't do it, since they're
> 'properly emancipated.'" Given the inadequacy of the answer -- to what
> seems like a basic question -- I give up studying the anarchist's writings.
> (I also wonder: "properly emancipated" by whom?)
>
> Now, I must say that I like William Morris' anarcho-communist utopia (NEWS
> FROM NOWHERE), but he's pretty clear that the utopia didn't arise without a
> long period of non-anarchist socialism beforehand.
>
> > >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).<
>
> >There is something to what you are saying here- but all of my "Stalinist"
> >leanings are not of a lack of trust in the people but rather a total
> >distrust of the enemy and a knowledge that through many "below" routes
> >will the counter-revolution be organised.
>
> we should also distrust those who stand "above" society and decide which
> movements from below are revolutionary (and thus okay) and which are
> counterrevolutionary (and thus not good). That decision can only be made
> democratically. And those "above" -- i.e., in positions of power -- are
> just as much part of society as those "below." They are subject to the same
> kinds of societal pressures, while they have power that can easily corrupt.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
