----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Devine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:46 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:16705] Re: Re: Re: Michael's Question
> I wrote: > 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)?"...The answer, of course, is that
they
> wouldn't do it, since they're "properly emancipated." <
>
> Gar wrote:
> >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.
>
> If they're in favor of a hyperdemocratic state, it's a good
direction to
> move in as far as I'm concerned. (I remember reading book defending
> anarchism by R.P. Wolf a long time ago in which he wanted some sort
of
> electronic democracy. Anything that improves the efficiency of
democratic
> representation or delegation is a good thing.) But mostly I get the
> impression that anarchists reject any kind of centralization of
power. They
> seem to confuse the dimension of centralized vs. decentralized power
with
> that of top-down vs. bottom-up power.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
===========
Many anarchists are against the idea of representation and
delegability; that one should speak for no one but oneself...oh,
there's that trickiest of words---should.
Ian
